Should game settings only be changed when 100% players agree?

Apparently, the point is being missed.
1. Rarely do I personally join these coalitions. I'd rather have a few big wins than many medicore wins.
2. This isn't about 'me' -- this is about game playability. For me, 'greatest overall playability' should be the goal. Perhaps your goal is the cult of the elite. Eventually AW would be a pretty lonely place.
3. If any particular player 'never' allies, and is happy with the outcome, clearly there is no need to change/alter/affect the playability.

Also, I have noticed very very few rank-limited games. Apparently high-rank players are very interested in low-rank SP, but not in competition, per se.

Napisano przez Tunder4, 29.01.2014 at 11:11

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 06:59

SP tax for high ranks

Lel, this is the reason i refuse to ally low ranks, because they change time.
Bring it on biatch, once i get hold of europe its over for you and your team, i had never lose a single game in which i take hold of europe in a world map, it always ends up with me holding africa,america and asia up to turn 50 and win by most sp.

Is AW a representation of football, or a representation of International Diplomacy and War?

Among the reasons why the football analogy is a horrible horrible representation of AW Game Settings application:

1. In Football, diplomacy means little at the per-game level (but might be significant in game fixing, association rules-bending and tournament selection). Football is refeshing because it is simple, gameplay is generally apolitical, rules are enforced and victory frequently goes to the most able.
In AW, and in International Relations, diplomacy is of significant importance.

2. In Football, there are only two teams playing, and the the game is binary zero-sum. In order for one team to win, the other must lose. In AW there are multiple independent players, with different tolerances for risk, different valuation for win, etc. Each player can choose to sacrifice a little potential SP to avert the risk of a large loss of SP (in the case of alli ends). They can also choose to put that potential SP at risk and fight.
You can choose to consider yourself as one team, and everyone else as another team. But ultimately you may be happier in a 1v1.

3. One can desire that 'international relations' (war and diplomacy) are governed by rules and referees with clear winners and losers, associations and bylaws, but international relations are often complex, ambiguous and with a high degree of duplicity.

4. One is asked to imagine a game of football. Imagine instead International Diplomacy and War:
- Everyone is a high-rank, high reputation player. There is an uneasy peace, with many interlocking and complicated alliances. Austria-Hungary, possibly reacting to a Serb invasion, declares war on Serbia. WWI begins. Russia, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey and eventually, Japan, Australia and the United States are dragged in.

- You and your allies possess unquestioned superiority over Continental Europe. Your nearby enemies cannot effectively mount counteroperations; you will likely win the war of attrition. Their primary ally remains at peace with you, and is 4-8 turns away, anyway. Seizing a temporary advantage, your ally Japan attacks their ally, the United States, and now you are obligated to declare war too. With fresh troops against you, and your enemy supplied with money, you are outspent and outfought and lose.

- Fresh from your triumph in the Great Patriotic War, your comrades in northern Korea are successfully bringing Lenin to their southern neighbors, on the point of a bayonet. For an unrelated reason, you turn your back on the UN Security Council, and the remaining powers take a vote, which you *could have vetoed* and the UN intervenes. You should have won there, and maybe worldwide, but with fresh troops against your ally and your enemy supplied with money, you are outspent and outfought. Your influence, which once dominated 1/2 the planet, is smaller than your pre-1940 borders.

- You're the most powerful nation in the world. Your closest rival doesn't really approach your might and wealth, but only he knows this for certain - you are forced to match him troop for troop in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Your ally, France, loses city after city in Vietnam. You reinforce Vietnam but are unable to stop the China-and-USSR funded onslaught. Just a few turns ago, both were your allies.

One specific case where the football analogy is quite adequate:
Football is a highly-styized, ritualisised abstraction of combat, centuries of tradition, and very locale-oriented (the emergence of 'international' teams is recent). A football game could be accurately said to represent one battle. AW is a an abstraction of international relations: Diplomacy and War (many battles, 100s of skirmishes), very recent, and highly international.

Napisano przez Silent One_deleted, 29.01.2014 at 12:39

Napisano przez VRIL, 28.01.2014 at 16:47

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.

I completely disagree with your point of view.

First of all, as of now it is against the rules to change the game setting to gain an unfair advantage or just to piss of the winning player.

Imagine a game of football: Youre ahead 3 to 1 and the game is about to end in 10 minutes. But no wait, the other team is able to influence the referee! The ref now decides your opponent may bring on 5 more players and the game gets prolonged for 30 minutes. Additionally you receive a yellow card every time you try to hold the ball. If it was like that, do you honestly think anybody would ever want to play a game of football again? I doubt it, because it clearly is cheating and it sucks! Winning is supposed to be fun but if all the option to end the game are either cheat, draw or straight up lose there will be nothing left to motivate.

Also changing game settings is not negotiation, it is black mailing.

I have never ever been so active on any other topic but this is vital to my game survival! Since if this does not change I will prob quit again for good . I wish there was a love button for that your post! I often use the football analogy especially since it is one of the more popular sports. Great post !

I understand your point of view, zombieyeti, but I have to disagree with it. Diplomacy and alliances are there to benefit what you call "the majority", or the low ranks.

In a whole world game, set up with 3 maximum alliances, for example, 3 lower ranked players could ally against me, having as much time as I do to make their moves, including the movement priority over me as a bonus. These rules were clear to everyone in the game since the start and I have nothing against it. "Ally-fagging" is there to prove my point and, in many cases, the mob will win against the lone player.

Now, changing the rules while in-game has nothing to do with diplomacy, since I can't even negotiate the terms if the majority decides to use it against me. Allowing late joiners, changing the turn time to 1 minute (or 48 hours to avoid a loss) are cheap moves from someone that has already the advantage position.

Yes, this game is about diplomacy and war, but it's still a game and should be oriented by rules. If you have 4 friends playing a risk game and 3 of them decided to unite against the one winning, they will still have to roll the dices and the chances will be equal. And even if the majority wants, there is no way to place two bring to more friends in the middle of the game to help

Somebody is using alts to vote for no change.
230 votes, only 75 people have seen the topic, bullshit alert.

Question:
IF it is true that the number of voters is far exceeded by the number of viewers, how do you know that the alts are voting for no change?

Napisano przez Krieger3, 30.01.2014 at 11:03

Somebody is using alts to vote for no change.
230 votes, only 75 people have seen the topic, bullshit alert.

I think I understand your argument, but before I jump to conclusions however, let me be clear so we do not suffer the 'sin' of equivocation.
Changing the Game Settings is not changing 'the rules'. And the rules apply to everyone, equally. As they should.

Before I could fairly address your other (Relevant and resoned) arguments, we would have to agree that changing the settings IS NOT changing 'the rules'. Changing the rules of a game is unfair and, and essentially, cheating.

That being said, if changing the Game Settings IS INDEED considered changing the rules, we have a very different argument. Changing the rules is unjust. I found no prescription against changing Game Settings, but I am only rank 5. If changing the Game Settings is indeed changing the rules "I tremble with indignation" myself.

All this being said, the mechanisms of diplomacy and the excellently-balanced warfare part are what make this game singular.

Napisano przez Pinheiro, 30.01.2014 at 10:19

I understand your point of view, zombieyeti, but I have to disagree with it. Diplomacy and alliances are there to benefit what you call "the majority", or the low ranks.

In a whole world game, set up with 3 maximum alliances, for example, 3 lower ranked players could ally against me, having as much time as I do to make their moves, including the movement priority over me as a bonus. These rules were clear to everyone in the game since the start and I have nothing against it. "Ally-fagging" is there to prove my point and, in many cases, the mob will win against the lone player.

Now, changing the rules while in-game has nothing to do with diplomacy, since I can't even negotiate the terms if the majority decides to use it against me. Allowing late joiners, changing the turn time to 1 minute (or 48 hours to avoid a loss) are cheap moves from someone that has already the advantage position.

Yes, this game is about diplomacy and war, but it's still a game and should be oriented by rules. If you have 4 friends playing a risk game and 3 of them decided to unite against the one winning, they will still have to roll the dices and the chances will be equal. And even if the majority wants, there is no way to place two bring to more friends in the middle of the game to help

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 12:36

I think I understand your argument, but before I jump to conclusions however, let me be clear so we do not suffer the 'sin' of equivocation.
Changing the Game Settings is not changing 'the rules'. And the rules apply to everyone, equally. As they should.

Before I could fairly address your other (Relevant and resoned) arguments, we would have to agree that changing the settings IS NOT changing 'the rules'. Changing the rules of a game is unfair and, and essentially, cheating.

That being said, if changing the Game Settings IS INDEED considered changing the rules, we have a very different argument. Changing the rules is unjust. I found no prescription against changing Game Settings, but I am only rank 5. If changing the Game Settings is indeed changing the rules "I tremble with indignation" myself.

All this being said, the mechanisms of diplomacy and the excellently-balanced warfare part are what make this game .

Why would somebody bother to kill other players, if a mob its just gonna jump on them if they dont ally-end with people that kill nobody the entire game.

This particular post addresses the perception that changing game settings is tantamount to changing game rules. I agree that changing game rules, midgame is 'cheating', but I [i[do not[/i] contend that changing game settings is changing game rules. I hope I am not breaking any forum rule by replying to an out-of-band question.
---
"Why would somebody bother to kill other players, if a mob its just gonna jump on them ..."
How often does that happen? In my limited experience, never, and if it were to happen, then the dominant player should have made one or two tactical alliances to avert this, losing some potential SP to avert risking a lot of potential SP.

- IF 'mob rule' was an actual issue, and so loaded with advantages, why wouldn't high-rank players just take advantage of the 'cheat' offered and gang up on low-ranks? Probably because a)its no fun and b)SP/minute played average is low.

- IF 'mob rule' is a feature of low-ranking games, then why don't more high-ranks just play games with rank-threshold limitations. It's very very rare to see such a thing occur. High-rank players are happy to take low-rank player SP, but seem to be adverse to anything that might put such predation at risk.
---
Does everyone consider AW to be a war-game, which does its best when it can supply the grand banquet that is worldwide diplomacy and war, balanced with rapid playability? Hitler and Napoleon both were denied ultimate victory by Grand Coalitions. I find it difficult to believe in the years this game has been played, that this is only now arising as an issue.

Napisano przez Krieger3, 30.01.2014 at 13:48

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 12:36

I think I understand your argument, but before I jump to conclusions however, let me be clear so we do not suffer the 'sin' of equivocation.
Changing the Game Settings is not changing 'the rules'. And the rules apply to everyone, equally. As they should.

Before I could fairly address your other (Relevant and resoned) arguments, we would have to agree that changing the settings IS NOT changing 'the rules'. Changing the rules of a game is unfair and, and essentially, cheating.

That being said, if changing the Game Settings IS INDEED considered changing the rules, we have a very different argument. Changing the rules is unjust. I found no prescription against changing Game Settings, but I am only rank 5. If changing the Game Settings is indeed changing the rules "I tremble with indignation" myself.

All this being said, the mechanisms of diplomacy and the excellently-balanced warfare part are what make this game .

Why would somebody bother to kill other players, if a mob its just gonna jump on them if they dont ally-end with people that kill nobody the entire game.

My biggest complaint about the current process is when the rules are offered, you cant say no. its either ignore or vote yes. in my opinion if 2/3 of people want the change it should be legal, but be able to vote no. Thanks
-Freeland

Napisano przez Pinheiro, 30.01.2014 at 10:19

I understand your point of view, zombieyeti, but I have to disagree with it. Diplomacy and alliances are there to benefit what you call "the majority", or the low ranks.

In a whole world game, set up with 3 maximum alliances, for example, 3 lower ranked players could ally against me, having as much time as I do to make their moves, including the movement priority over me as a bonus. These rules were clear to everyone in the game since the start and I have nothing against it. "Ally-fagging" is there to prove my point and, in many cases, the mob will win against the lone player.

Now, changing the rules while in-game has nothing to do with diplomacy, since I can't even negotiate the terms if the majority decides to use it against me. Allowing late joiners, changing the turn time to 1 minute (or 48 hours to avoid a loss) are cheap moves from someone that has already the advantage position

Yes, this game is about diplomacy and war, but it's still a game and should be oriented by rules. If you have 4 friends playing a risk game and 3 of them decided to unite against the one winning, they will still have to roll the dices and the chances will be equal. And even if the majority wants, there is no way to place two bring to more friends in the middle of the game to help

The calm voice of reason, thx pin.I have been a lil busy and really could not take too much time to respond to that long post by zomb

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 01.02.2014 at 15:25

~Irrelevant Opinion~

You failed to read the evidence presented to you:

Napisano przez b0nker2, 27.01.2014 at 11:58

Changing turn times to 1 min when they were 3 or 4 playing 5 on 1 can't ever be called 'fun' its shocking that some of the older players think in any way shape or form that your 2 hours can be wasted by some ally fagging numb brains or trolls for the ability to 'spice up a game' or 'so its funny when people can get butthurt' 9/10 this is done by people who are clearly losing and is the only opportunity they have to attempt a win.

Napisano przez Silent One_deleted, 25.01.2014 at 15:08

So right now I am basically once more feeling like how I felt a few months ago; just like forgetting this game exists. I had some time on my hand today so decided to try my hand at a few quick games.Found a nice World game 50 which in recent time I have started to like. The GAME SETTINGS changed no less than 10 TIMES in this game I think. That is just absolutely ridiculous!! The game was a 4 vs 1, with me being the 1, sometimes if ppl want to be like that I say bring it but what happened after is just plain CHEATING. I was N.America and managed to defeat one of my opponents, now here enters first game change: joining date changed and I once again have to fight another opponent , Convinced I was lost the game settings changed again back to turn 0. What happened consistently after that is just disgraceful. A 'Friend or whatever" kept joining and allying only for a few turns then leaving. What was being done was that this "player' would fund asia and europe then leave ! The game settings would change again to allow him back in then he would fund allies again and procedure continuously repeated. Remember it was a 50K game so that is a lot of funds . I still managed to get to Europe and even over power SA to the point where only capital city remained on SA. Only for an opponent with no money of course to manage to fund 500+ troops and all in cap. On turns where I would have the upper hand the GAME SETTINGS would be cHanged to 10 mins ! Yes 10 mins to allow opponents sufficient time to try to solve problems then once this was finished , sometimes turns were 1 min! WHAT IS THE POINT OF PLAYING A GAME WITH SUCH BLATANT LOOPHOLES !

Napisano przez VRIL, 26.01.2014 at 12:44

Unanimous. There are complaints about changed settings almost daily. The current system was implemented with best intentions but it does more bad than good sometimes.

Napisano przez Guest, 25.01.2014 at 16:08

This is actually why I've never really played: The game is unfair, and players are arseholes straight to your face.

Napisano przez Goblin, 28.01.2014 at 09:10

Oh i have a little story about my last world game when i was rank 7... goes something like this:

(turn 30 - killed 5 players, have the strongest army in the game and 1 ally - game is curently 2v3)

ally chat: "ElBastardo": goblin could you send me money so i can kill china!
ally chat: Goblin: sure i have alot of money, sending you 10k
ally chat: "ElBastardo": thanks man

(turn 31)

Goblin: umm dude why you broken alliance with me? :/
ElBastardo: que?
Goblin: Uh ...i sent you money, why did you break alliance?
ElBastardo: no habla english
Goblin: you spoke english in ally chat all the time wtf?
ElBastardo: que? fuck off
pm/ China: goblin lets ally, that dude is an asshole ...can you send me money
pm/ Goblin: i just sent him half my cash ...you gona trick me like he did...
pm/ China: hahah you fucking cunt we gona fuck you up bitch!!!
Goblin: guys i have more money and troops then you all together...

(turn 32 - they switch turn time to 1 minute)

Goblin: awwh come on ...why you do that?
Allyfag2: lol
Chinafag: cunt!
ElBastardo: que bitch? lolol
Allyfag:
.
(turn 35 - they realized i will kill them even faster in 1 minute so they switched to 12 minutes)

Goblin: wtf 12 minutes? ...dudes come on i need to go to work. Why are you doin this ...lets atleast allyend ok?
Allyfag: lol you butthurt goblin?
ElBastardo: hahah fuck you little bitch!!
Chinafag: BUTTHURT LITTLE BABY!!!
Goblin: o.O
Allyfag: you mad bro?
Allyfag: you mad little pussy?
Elbastardo: lol
Chinafag: lol
Allyfag2: LOL


...does this seem normal to you guys? ...it doesnt to me ...never played world game after that.

Rather than addressing the issue, you tried to justify it with "Mob Rule"

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Keep it the way it is. This is a social/multiplayer game. Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.

This is not a Diplomacy game, its a war game. if you want diplomacy you can play UN.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- Simple majority to effect a change means that high-rank/high-upgrade players will have to accommodate the masses in one way or another.

This will only make high ranks to stop playing world maps, and the few that remain playing will have to ally-fag.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- Having a lock against what is permitted to change means that you have determined, as the game host, that changes to the current structure are more likely to harm you than hurt you. If you want no changes to the preset conditions, play 1v1 games. Also, having this lock might as well mean it is always on, if the game is hosted by a high-rank player.

The host should decide if he wants the settings changed or not, if you don't like it: join another game with a different host.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- Clearly the 'simple majority' mechanism and the game properties which may be changed are a bulwark against the tyranny of the minority (generally speaking, high ranking players).

High ranks are persons too, not having allies is already bad, why do you want to take advantage of this by changing time? of course you don't understand this due to your limited time in this game.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- The current system is very much like an SP tax on the highly skilled players. Either they choose to share some of their SP via alliances, or risk losing half of it to the unwashed masses.

There is a big difference between loosing to low ranks and loosing because the enemy team cheated and changed settings to their advantage.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- Without the current system, or something like it, what is the incentive of high-rank players to alli with low rank players?

Low ranks have a lobby for them, once they become rank 5 they are suppose to learn how to play.
This current system is not only abused by low ranks, but by high ranks alike, what if a bunch of high ranks change the time to defeat a rank 5 that its really good? eh?

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

I think looking at what the settings that may be changed and the mechanism for putting changes into force will speak for the intent of the current system, and why it is probably a good system. As a fundamental I assume that all players are acting in what they perceive as their best interests, which should be maximization of SP per minute of play, and/or maximization of number of wins/game played.

Under the current system, the settings may not be changed unless a "simple majority" (50% +1 of current players) agree. The net result of this should be that the minority of players are somehow disadvantaged by the changes to the settings, to the advantage of the majority. e.g. While 1 minute turns will hurt me when I move my 40 units, I calculate it will hurt Pinheiro more with his 1000 units to move around. Therefore, I vote for 1 minute turns.

The minority suffers. Sometimes it is an annoyance (turn duration), and sometimes the minority player might lose (permitting latejoins, increasing # of allies). This being the case, why would anyone choose to be in the minority?

you are speaking as if the minority choose to be the minority.
what if i am playing a game and only 2 people are left, they both are determined to kill me and refuse to ally-end with me, since i am too pro for them, they decide to change the time to 1 minute?

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Maximization of SP, obviously. When one wins with few or no allies, the amount of SP is much larger. Generally, this speaks to the skill and experience of the players in the minority, and to their rank and accumulated upgrades.

In a social game, clearly, anything that pleases the majority of players over the long terms should be the norm. What about the minority player? The lone gunman, who needs no allies (generally highly skilled with many upgrades and much experience) to win? In a zero-alli environment, they should win, every time. All other things being equal, in a zero-alli environment, the player with the greatest number of relevant upgrades will win.

Again, this is not a "Social" game, but a "War" Game, the main goal is to kill the other 19 players in the map.
if the minority wants to have no allies, so be it, changing time to defeat him is clearly cheating.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Playability (greatest good for the greatest number) almost screams for maintaining the current system. It does not prevent the 'minority' from winning -- but it does dilute their SP earnings in one way (forcing high rank players to alli) or another (finding themselves robbed of SP by losing to mobs). If you as a player don't want to surrender some of your SP to the 'leeches' you are free to risk this.

99% percent of the Mob are butthurt players that where suppose to lose, and exploited the system to change the time.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 29.01.2014 at 20:50

2. This isn't about 'me' -- this is about game playability. For me, 'greatest overall playability' should be the goal. Perhaps your goal is the cult of the elite. Eventually AW would be a pretty lonely place.

The elite is the people that pay for premium and make maps to keep the game running, if a bunch of freebies leave due to being noobs, so be it.
any other person that wants to rank up and is of good sport is welcome to stay.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 29.01.2014 at 20:50

3. If any particular player 'never' allies, and is happy with the outcome, clearly there is no need to change/alter/affect the playability.

Also, I have noticed very very few rank-limited games. Apparently high-rank players are very interested in low-rank SP, but not in competition, per se.

This is not the problem, neither people making mobs againts them, but the fact that the settings are being changed to cheat.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 12:36

Before I could fairly address your other (Relevant and resoned) arguments, we would have to agree that changing the settings IS NOT changing 'the rules'. Changing the rules of a game is unfair and, and essentially, cheating.

Changing the settings is indeed changing the rules.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 14:11

How often does that happen? In my limited experience, never, and if it were to happen, then the dominant player should have made one or two tactical alliances to avert this, losing some potential SP to avert risking a lot of potential SP.

Again, read the first posts, everybody agrees that mobbing and changing time is a problem

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 14:11

- IF 'mob rule' was an actual issue, and so loaded with advantages, why wouldn't high-rank players just take advantage of the 'cheat' offered and gang up on low-ranks? Probably because a)its no fun and b)SP/minute played average is low.

Because Most high ranks are not douche bags

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 14:11

- IF 'mob rule' is a feature of low-ranking games, then why don't more high-ranks just play games with rank-threshold limitations. It's very very rare to see such a thing occur. High-rank players are happy to take low-rank player SP, but seem to be adverse to anything that might put such predation at risk.

There is no enough high ranks to play with, its hard to feel a game of +7 with that only requires 6 people.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 14:11

Does everyone consider AW to be a war-game

EVERYBODY considers >At War< a War game, if you want diplomacy go play UN

Responses below.

Napisano przez Krieger3, 01.02.2014 at 16:25

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 01.02.2014 at 15:25

~Irrelevant Opinion~

Major Takeaways:
- Changing from the status quo will not end the world. But I don't see how making things less engaging for low ranked players will make for more revenue or more future higher-ranked players.
- Just because I think the way things are is 'good' doesn't mean I think those that post in opposition are wrong or bad just because they disagree. I do think that their focus isn't on the greatest overall fun, and that happy low ranks are more likely to become happy high ranks, and drive revenue.
- From Sun Tzu to Kissinger and beyond, politics, war and negotiation are tied together in international relations. Fact.
- To say AW is not a social game is prima facie false. And as a social game, more social opportunities drive more new players.
- History/IRL is full of grand coalitions that last just long enough to topple someone who threatens everyone else. AW permits these historical realities in its playspace.
- Many have expressed that changing the Game Settings is like changing the rules midgame. For me, game changes are another chaotic element just like IRL battlespace management.

[D:]You failed to read the evidence presented to you:
[ZY]: If you mean " failed to read other people's posts", that is patently false.
I acknowledged early on that many desire to have the system changed. It is almost unanimous that the people posting want the system changed. Is this supposed to be a revelation?
[EDIT: Many posts where frustrated players share anecdotes deleted for brevity, not for lack of relevance.].

[D:] Rather than addressing the issue, you tried to justify it with "Mob Rule"

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Keep it the way it is. This is a social/multiplayer game. Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.

[ZY:] The issue? If by Issue you mean the 'question', that was: "What do you Think (about changing the system)?"
Many posted what they think. Nearly all expressed that there should be some change. I read those posts, put in what I think, and WHY I think this way. Which of these statements do you believe to be untrue?
- This is a social/multiplayer game.
- Communication between players is good for a social/multiplayer game.
- Negotiation requires communication.
- Negotiation requires each party to be able to provide value-for-value.
- Changes to the system would provide less value for lower-rank players to offer in negotiation to trade with higher-rank players.
It is my *belief* that negotiation is a good thing. And that this is a virtue that should be encouraged, because international relations IS ALL ABOUT politics/negotiation between State Actors. Sometime the tool is words and sometimes ...

[D:]This is not a Diplomacy game, its a war game. if you want diplomacy you can play UN.
[ZY:] a. Perhaps you were unaware that War, Negotiation, and Politics are intertwined. Sun Tzu, Carl v Clausewitz, among others would likely disagree with you. War is Negotiation. UN games = Do Not Like.
b.I am hard-pressed to think of a war game that doesn't involve negotiation. Even the most basic wargames (checkers and chess) have the option of a consensual draw, to which both players must agree.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- Simple majority to effect a change means that high-rank/high-upgrade players will have to accommodate the masses in one way or another.

[D:] This will only make high ranks to stop playing world maps, and the few that remain playing will have to ally-fag.
[ZY:] Some may choose to stop playing world maps. Some will continue to play because the opportunity for SP/turn in a World Map is very large. There are a continuum of possibilities between having no allies, and a 20-player ally end.
Again, I point to the historical record: Napoleon and Hitler were among those bested by 'Grand Coalitions' of one kind or another, and that no single entity has conquered the world yet. If higher ranks choose to quit playing world maps, I'm sure that the lower-ranks that become higher-ranks will not have the same fear.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- Having a lock against what is permitted to change means that you have determined, as the game host, that changes to the current structure are more likely to harm you than hurt you. If you want no changes to the preset conditions, play 1v1 games. Also, having this lock might as well mean it is always on, if the game is hosted by a high-rank player.

[D:] The host should decide if he wants the settings changed or not, if you don't like it: join another game with a different host.
[ZY:] So we agree.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- Clearly the 'simple majority' mechanism and the game properties which may be changed are a bulwark against the tyranny of the minority (generally speaking, high ranking players).

[D:] High ranks are persons too, not having allies is already bad, why do you want to take advantage of this by changing time? of course you don't understand this due to your limited time in this game.
[ZY:] I struggle to obtain where, from my statement, you derive that I espouse the non-personhood of high-rank players, and that by their rank alone will be unable to obtain allies. If there is doubt, I declare: I think that high-rank players are people (too) and that they are currently free to enter into diplomatic negotiations with whomever they see fit.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- The current system is very much like an SP tax on the highly skilled players. Either they choose to share some of their SP via alliances, or risk losing half of it to the unwashed masses.

[D:] There is a big difference between loosing to low ranks and loosing because the enemy team cheated and changed settings to their advantage.
[ZY:] Two Responses:
A. I would contend that one who loses because turn time is changed didn't have a decisive lead, or unwisely joined a game where the turn limit was beyond their endurance. If a player doesn't astutely manage diplomacy, I also contend that they really didn't have a decisive lead. I suspect "ally flooding" where a "losing" majority changes the Joining Turn could be very frustrating, but history has examples of 'late joining' tipping the balance (US entries into WWI and WW2, Korea, China's subsequent entry into Korea etc.).

B. I've seen at least three people who have expressed that changing the game settings to the advantage of the majority is cheating. That may be the case, but I have found no evidence of this, other than expressed opinion.
That being said, I don't think reasonable people would expect players to intentionally change Game Settings to their disadvantage?

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

- Without the current system, or something like it, what is the incentive of high-rank players to alli with low rank players?

[D:] Low ranks have a lobby for them, once they become rank 5 they are suppose to learn how to play.
This current system is not only abused by low ranks, but by high ranks alike, what if a bunch of high ranks change the time to defeat a rank 5 that its really good? eh?
[YT:] I apologize for the confusion. I consider Rank 6-7 and lower as low rank (lack of upgrades), but my fault for pushing that phrase around. It is certainly possible for highER-rank players to change the time to defeat a lowER-rank player, and all things being equal, time constraints should favor the higher-skilled-and-upgraded-player. Things are rarely equal; I would *opine* that shorter times disproportionately affect the player who is 'winning' - as they have many territories to manage (one aspect of the fog of war, and where the efficiency of unity-of-command vs. decentralization). That being said, cooperating high rank players should not need to reduce time to defeat fewer lower-rank players.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

I think looking at what the settings that may be changed and the mechanism for putting changes into force will speak for the intent of the current system, and why it is probably a good system. As a fundamental I assume that all players are acting in what they perceive as their best interests, which [i]should be maximization of SP per minute of play, and/or maximization of number of wins/game played.

Under the current system, the settings may not be changed unless a "simple majority" (50% +1 of current players) agree. The net result of this should be that the minority of players are somehow disadvantaged by the changes to the settings, to the advantage of the majority. e.g. While 1 minute turns will hurt me when I move my 40 units, I calculate it will hurt Pinheiro more with his 1000 units to move around. Therefore, I vote for 1 minute turns.

The minority suffers. Sometimes it is an annoyance (turn duration), and sometimes the minority player might lose (permitting latejoins, increasing # of allies). This being the case, why would anyone choose to be in the minority?

[D:] you are speaking as if the minority choose to be the minority.
what if i am playing a game and only 2 people are left, they both are determined to kill me and refuse to ally-end with me, since i am too pro for them, they decide to change the time to 1 minute?
[ZY:] Your phrasing speaks volumes, but again I'll be charitable. I think you mean [3] people, 2 v 1, and it appears you're not looking for advice on winning, but to describe a very likely scenario. You lost. Either you're not pro enough, or your lead wasn't decisive enough, or your enemy focus is not on SP maximization, or your diplomacy failed, or some combination of the four elements. When they change the time to 1 minute, it is 1 minute for everyone, isn't it?

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Maximization of SP, obviously. When one wins with few or no allies, the amount of SP is much larger. Generally, this speaks to the skill and experience of the players in the minority, and to their rank and accumulated upgrades.

In a social game, clearly, anything that pleases the majority of players over the long terms should be the norm. What about the minority player? The lone gunman, who needs no allies (generally highly skilled with many upgrades and much experience) to win? In a zero-alli environment, they should win, every time. All other things being equal, in a zero-alli environment, the player with the greatest number of relevant upgrades will win.

[D:] Again, this is not a "Social" game, but a "War" Game, the main goal is to kill the other 19 players in the map.
if the minority wants to have no allies, so be it, changing time to defeat him is clearly cheating.
[ZY:] Diplomacy. Voting. Negotiations. Alliances. Clans. Chat. Forums. Facebook connect. Incentives to invite friends. AW is very much a war game, and AW is very much a Social game. In this particular claim I have no idea what game you're playing.
AFA goals: Maximization of SP/Turn played is a goal. Winning vs. SP is a goal. Getting rep may be a goal. idk what drives players, but finding that out and delivering is the art and science of game development.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Playability (greatest good for the greatest number) almost screams for maintaining the current system. It does not prevent the 'minority' from winning -- but it does dilute their SP earnings in one way (forcing high rank players to alli) or another (finding themselves robbed of SP by losing to mobs). If you as a player don't want to surrender some of your SP to the 'leeches' you are free to risk this.

[D:] 99% percent of the Mob are butthurt players that where suppose to lose, and exploited the system to change the time.
[ZY:] Sauce?

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 29.01.2014 at 20:50

2. This isn't about 'me' -- this is about game playability. For me, 'greatest overall playability' should be the goal. Perhaps your goal is the cult of the elite. Eventually AW would be a pretty lonely place.

[D:] The elite is the people that pay for premium and make maps to keep the game running, if a bunch of freebies leave due to being noobs, so be it.
any other person that wants to rank up and is of good sport is welcome to stay.
[ZY:] So, my goal is greatest overall playability. And your goal is for ...?

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 29.01.2014 at 20:50

3. If any particular player 'never' allies, and is happy with the outcome, clearly there is no need to change/alter/affect the playability.

Also, I have noticed very very few rank-limited games. Apparently high-rank players are very interested in low-rank SP, but not in competition, per se.

This is not the problem, neither people making mobs againts them, but the fact that the settings are being changed to cheat.
[ZY:] Clearly that's not what you think is the problem. Higher rank players feed on lower-rank players SP, fear lower-rank players may bind together against them.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 12:36

Before I could fairly address your other (Relevant and resoned) arguments, we would have to agree that changing the settings IS NOT changing 'the rules'. Changing the rules of a game is unfair and, and essentially, cheating.

[D:] Changing the settings is indeed changing the rules.
[ZY:] When did the momentous change occur? This I do not know, and I combed the 'news' section.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 14:11

How often does that happen? In my limited experience, never, and if it were to happen, then the dominant player should have made one or two tactical alliances to avert this, losing some potential SP to avert risking a lot of potential SP.

[D:] Again, read the first posts, everybody agrees that mobbing and changing time is a problem
[ZY:] And again ... "then the dominant player should have made one or two tactical alliances to avert this, losing some potential SP to avert risking a lot of potential SP."

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 14:11

- IF 'mob rule' was an actual issue, and so loaded with advantages, why wouldn't high-rank players just take advantage of the 'cheat' offered and gang up on low-ranks? Probably because a)its no fun and b)SP/minute played average is low.

[D:] Because Most high ranks are not douche bags
[ZY:] How many are, and how many are not, then?

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 14:11

- IF 'mob rule' is a feature of low-ranking games, then why don't more high-ranks just play games with rank-threshold limitations. It's very very rare to see such a thing occur. High-rank players are happy to take low-rank player SP, but seem to be adverse to anything that might put such predation at risk.

[D:] There is no enough high ranks to play with, its hard to feel a game of +7 with that only requires 6 people.
[YT:] If this is the concern, then I would definitely look to drive lower-rank players to *want* to earn high rank, by providing opportunities for the occasional victory.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 30.01.2014 at 14:11

Does everyone consider AW to be a war-game

[D:] EVERYBODY considers >At War< a War game, if you want diplomacy go play UN

[ZY:] See above to either expand your knowledge of what I assumed was common, everyday understanding ("War is the continuation of Politik by other means", "The Supreme Art of War is to subdue the enemy without fighting") or maintain your ignorance of the basics of War, and Wargaming.

Removed some trolling comments. Please stay on topic, dont insult each other.

Additional note: Players can vote directly on the main page without visiting this discussion. That is the reason why the amount of topic views and total votes differ.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 29.01.2014 at 20:50

Apparently high-rank players are very interested in low-rank SP, but not in competition, per se.

This applies to ALL of our players pretty much. Players want wins and players want SP. No one likes to lose a game when he invested hours to play it. And it is the exact same reason some players attempt to change the game settings in their favor - or do you really think they consider game setting change a fair diplomatic option? They are going for the SP just like anyone else, only that they dont make use of the whole game play repertoire AW has to offer. Instead they exploit flaws in the mechanism that has been implemented to prevent abuse.

Couldn't be assed to read all the arguments just skimmed through, but anyone who thinks high ranks play with no allies for SP has a misguided opinion, halfway through rank 9 SP becomes totally irrelevant in terms of what you can do with it, so basically we are playing for the challenge. Its not all about SP.

Napisano przez VRIL, 04.02.2014 at 06:44

Removed some trolling comments. Please stay on topic, dont insult each other.

Additional note: Players can vote directly on the main page without visiting this discussion. That is the reason why the amount of topic views and total votes differ.

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 29.01.2014 at 20:50

Apparently high-rank players are very interested in low-rank SP, but not in competition, per se.

This applies to ALL of our players pretty much. Players want wins and players want SP. No one likes to lose a game when he invested hours to play it. And it is the exact same reason some players attempt to change the game settings in their favor - or do you really think they consider game setting change a fair diplomatic option? They are going for the SP just like anyone else, only that they dont make use of the whole game play repertoire AW has to offer. Instead they exploit flaws in the mechanism that has been implemented to prevent abuse.

Excellent points. 'Fair minded' players want some balance of wins/SP.
Question: What leverage do lower rank players have to exert pressure on higher rank players to ally, in the case of many lower-ranking players vs. a few higher rank players?

Question: Does changing the game turn time "lower" constitute an abuse, in your opinion, in all cases, especially if most players want shorter/longer turns?

Note: Clearly, changing a game from 'Quick' to 'Casual' (or the reverse) is bad. Changing the 'type' of game is one thing, changing the duration of the game turns is another question. If this is a point that players want to have conceded, it is freely conceded by my. If I signed up in the Casual Room, then a Casual game is what I'm looking for.

I agree AW gameplay is not all about SP at all times for everyone (for example, I'll never break an alliance merely to win SP, and I'll ally with clan members even if it will reduce my SP share), and players, ultimately, are those who decide where in AW their happiness lies (winrate/SP maximization/rep something else).

SP may not be useful past a certain rank for 'spending' but it is still the best of two ways to keep score (wins being the other), because, in a social game with points, points do matter!

Since ally ends result in wins, the issue therefore must be SP OR (as you mention) some kind of internal satisfaction that is not measurable. Whilst winning against all odds/all players is a 'fair' minded goal, it does speak to an unmeasured aspect of the game. Contrast this to the various forms of douchebaggery (trolling). Not measured, not fair-mided, but clearly satisfies some internal satisfaction of some players.
---
If your argument is that Game Settings should require unanimity to be changed, because you want to pursue an internal goal, personally I appreciate your honesty, but would it be fair for everyone in playing the game you're playing to be bent to your internal goal, especially when they're looking for SP or wins?

Napisano przez b0nker2, 04.02.2014 at 15:49

Couldn't be assed to read all the arguments just skimmed through, but anyone who thinks high ranks play with no allies for SP has a misguided opinion, halfway through rank 9 SP becomes totally irrelevant in terms of what you can do with it, so basically we are playing for the challenge. Its not all about SP.

New approach for the same discussion.
The games in AW, at contention, are comprised of at least three players, and, likely many more.

If most people want to go from 4 minute turns to 3 minute turns, or from 1 minute turns to 10 minute turns, isn't that the fairest way to go?

Should the one person who doesn't want the change be the reason everyone else receives less enjoyment from the game?

If turn duration changeable by the majority is 'new' what was the previous state, and why was their a change?

---
I agree that the fundamental nature of the Game should not be changeable from Quick to Casual or vice-versa.

If you force me to argue within the flawed football analogy *challenge accepted*
1. Time Stoppage/Added Time/Game suspension etc.
In association football, these are mediated by the referee.
There is no impartial authority monitoring every game in AW at every time.
The Game System itself is the closest AW has to an impartial 3rd party monitoring the gamespace at all times.
---
At all times, when a question of fairness manifests with no answer, certainly, one player shouldn't be the judge.

2. If I am hearing the opposition to the status quo correctly (vis. you) then the Game Settings are being changed specifically in recognition of "the progress you have worked for in the ongoing game". Yes, the minority may receive a handicap; longer turns are not a handicap though, so we must be referring to shorter turns.

Shorter turns are a handicap to the currently winning players, if they are in the minority. That being said, shorter turns increase the opportunities of the side with more players.

The only fair in warfare is at it's end. I just made that up. Clever, for a pun, eh?

Napisano przez VRIL, 28.01.2014 at 16:47

Napisano przez zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.

I completely disagree with your point of view.

First of all, as of now it is against the rules to change the game setting to gain an unfair advantage or just to piss of the winning player.

Imagine a game of football: Youre ahead 3 to 1 and the game is about to end in 10 minutes. But no wait, the other team is able to influence the referee! The ref now decides your opponent may bring on 5 more players and the game gets prolonged for 30 minutes. Additionally you receive a yellow card every time you try to hold the ball. If it was like that, do you honestly think anybody would ever want to play a game of football again? I doubt it, because it clearly is cheating and it sucks! Winning is supposed to be fun but if all the option to end the game are either cheat, draw or straight up lose there will be nothing left to motivate.

Also changing game settings is not negotiation, it is black mailing.

/Edit: The football anology was not meant to describe the AW game play concept but the situation you find yourself in when the game settings are getting changed: You are either on the side that prefers to change the settings or to keep the current settings. But no matter what side you are on, if you are in the minority you will get an extra handicap completely ignoring the progress you have worked for in the ongoing game.

Just to clear some things up:

1st - host changes settings at will
2nd - majority vote
current - majority of all "teams" vote

So far everytime it got changed due to abuse and it still is getting abused as much as ever. And dont quadruple post pls, you can edit your post, check the top right hand corner of it.

Cytuj:

Cytuj:

Napisano przez Goblin, 28.01.2014 at 09:10

I actually agree with this. Some of my best AW memories involve world games with rounds of changing up the game settings (like making the join week 99 etc). It was interesting and usually pretty funny when people got butthurt. We shouldn't appease crybabies at the cost of making the game stale.

Oh i have a little story about my last world game when i was rank 7... goes something like this:

(turn 30 - killed 5 players, have the strongest army in the game and 1 ally - game is curently 2v3)

ally chat: "ElBastardo": goblin could you send me money so i can kill china!
ally chat: Goblin: sure i have alot of money, sending you 10k
ally chat: "ElBastardo": thanks man

(turn 31)

Goblin: umm dude why you broken alliance with me? :/
ElBastardo: que?
Goblin: Uh ...i sent you money, why did you break alliance?
ElBastardo: no habla english
Goblin: you spoke english in ally chat all the time wtf?
ElBastardo: que? fuck off
pm/ China: goblin lets ally, that dude is an asshole ...can you send me money
pm/ Goblin: i just sent him half my cash ...you gona trick me like he did...
pm/ China: hahah you fucking cunt we gona fuck you up bitch!!!
Goblin: guys i have more money and troops then you all together...

(turn 32 - they switch turn time to 1 minute)

Goblin: awwh come on ...why you do that?
Allyfag2: lol
Chinafag: cunt!
ElBastardo: que bitch? lolol
Allyfag:
.
(turn 35 - they realized i will kill them even faster in 1 minute so they switched to 12 minutes)

Goblin: wtf 12 minutes? ...dudes come on i need to go to work. Why are you doin this ...lets atleast allyend ok?
Allyfag: lol you butthurt goblin?
ElBastardo: hahah fuck you little bitch!!
Chinafag: BUTTHURT LITTLE BABY!!!
Goblin: o.O
Allyfag: you mad bro?
Allyfag: you mad little pussy?
Elbastardo: lol
Chinafag: lol
Allyfag2: LOL


...does this seem normal to you guys? ...it doesnt to me ...never played world game after that.

lol goblin, while i sympathise and have been on the receiving end of similar tactics, i had to laugh. you really do seem to attract the scum of atwar =/

If we require everyone to agree to game setting changes, that is the fairest way to do it. The worst thing that will happen is that we will need to check the game settings much more carefully before joining a game. We should show game settings on the overview of all the games so that we do not have to waste time looking for a good game.

I think that most of those who voted for "no" are the typical and classic faggots inmature people ruining games.
The current vote system MUST be changed, it is unfair. Unanimous agreement seems to be most rational system to me, since there's no other good ideas. I do not support to make it as option. Most of games would have the option to change settings turned on.

I think we should establish a minimum number of votes for settings to change. Games with 5 or less players should require unanimity for settings to change, but games with more than 5 players should allow changes by majority vote. This would stop players from abusing the current system (most abuse happens in games of < 6 from my experience) but still allow large games to make important changes.

Napisano przez notserral, 27.01.2014 at 08:35

I'd suggest a little padlock icon near almost every setting. The game host can set those, and the locked settings can only be altered by unanimous vote.

And mods would be able to lock settings in a running game when a lot of griefing is involved.

Good idea. Can the host change the padlock settings in-game? If so:

If the host wants a setting changed, he will simply uncheck the padlock box and get his allies to vote for the change. The host's enemies do not have this power, so the game is still unfair for them. I don't think the host should have more power than any other player over the game.

Napisano przez VRIL, 28.01.2014 at 16:47

First of all, as of now it is against the rules to change the game setting to gain an unfair advantage or just to piss of the winning player.

Imagine a game of football: Youre ahead 3 to 1 and the game is about to end in 10 minutes. But no wait, the other team is able to influence the referee! The ref now decides your opponent may bring on 5 more players and the game gets prolonged for 30 minutes. Additionally you receive a yellow card every time you try to hold the ball. If it was like that, do you honestly think anybody would ever want to play a game of football again?

/Edit: The football anology was not meant to describe the AW game play concept but the situation you find yourself in when the game settings are getting changed.

Excellent argument Vril, I hope that anyone who thinks manipulating game settings to give themselves an advantage is "fun" will seriously consider these words. It's not about who is a crybaby, etc. but rather about good sportsmanship (which the majority is usually lacking).

A lot of times, when trying to ally end, one player may not be accepting the changes and trolling or trying to get more SP. Maybe show the players who have accepted the changes?

Clarification on the current voting system:
Scenario: 20 person game, all players still alive and active.

There are 4 alliances (including one overlap), and four players without alliances.

Alliance A: 11 people. Not allied with anyone else. Players A1-A11
Alliance B: 3 people. Players B12-B14. B12 is also allied with C15.
Alliance C: 2 People. Players C15 and C16. C15 is also allied with B12.
Alliance BC: 2 people (already counted against the 20) B12 and C15.
Unallied: 4 people. C17-20.

Question: How many 'teams' are there for voting purposes? I see 8. 4 unallied people, 2 alliances where the set of players does not overlap with another set of players, and 2 alliances with overlapping sets of players.
Source: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=4545

If this is indeed the case, then many complaints against status quo are groundless, except in the marginal cases where alliances form, break up for the purposes of voting, then re-form after the vote has concluded.

I doubt that most players even understand the current voting weights.

In other words, the current voting system, while complex, effects a balance between the 'interest' groups.
Granted, this balance is a bit heavy towards the minority interest, without pandering to unanimity (where one troll can ruin it all).

Napisano przez VRIL, 05.02.2014 at 17:42

Just to clear some things up:

1st - host changes settings at will
2nd - majority vote
current - majority of all "teams" vote

So far everytime it got changed due to abuse and it still is getting abused as much as ever. And dont quadruple post pls, you can edit your post, check the top right hand corner of it.

I'm pretty sure this vote is not fair. A LOT, and MOST of people who voted, voted in the main page just because they like to play unfair, and did not even get into the thread to read.

Plez dunt taek this vote as srs, iven.

And I think that the current system is not actually good. What if I wanna play 1min turns and then people who don't like it change it to 2,3,4? And what they said, too, it's pretty ab00seable. Even an unanimous agreement system would be better, for every setting. If you don't like settings, leave.

If you total "Yes" and "No, a new system is needed", then you end up with more people in favor of changing the current system.
Restricting game settings changes to when 100% players agree is probably not the best solution. It would have been better to just ask "should the way game options are changed be modified?" (yes or no). I'm fairly sure most would have agreed to modifications. There are just so many ways the game options change can be abused.

A specific solution could have been discussed & voted on later. IMO, the best solution proposed so far is a way for the host to lock certain settings.

My feelings are that the "host" should have the greatest (but not exclusive) say in changing the game settings. The host, after all, was the one that created a certain game setting which everyone else decided to join. One way to handle this is to have the host with veto rights over game changes. If the host wants to change the settings, he/she needs at least one more person (or maybe >30% if there are many playing) to agree. If anyone other than the host wants to change the settings, the host must agree. In this way, the person creating/hosting the game cannot get overwhelmed by a group of friends that joined the game, et cetera.

Napisano przez Spartans300, 23.02.2014 at 00:26

My feelings are that the "host" should have the greatest (but not exclusive) say in changing the game settings. The host, after all, was the one that created a certain game setting which everyone else decided to join. One way to handle this is to have the host with veto rights over game changes. If the host wants to change the settings, he/she needs at least one more person (or maybe >30% if there are many playing) to agree. If anyone other than the host wants to change the settings, the host must agree. In this way, the person creating/hosting the game cannot get overwhelmed by a group of friends that joined the game, et cetera.

Sorry, this idea is just bad..Hf with host buds & more exploiting. If this gets implemented, I swear I'll troll a lot in scenarios xD.
The ONLY way to make settings not exploitable, is to make everything unanimous agreement. And make the max. alliances unchangeable. People still allyfag on me, specially when I farm in my map The Hexagon

Host should be able to veto a majority decision on settings change. This way he can't just change settings as fits himself, but still is able to excert enough control to at least keep the settings as they were.

Don't fix what's not broken.



Fk off, Goblin ;3

If it is changed so that 100% of players have to agree, There will always be that one person who ignores the game settings tab when a turn ends.

Napisano przez PickleOfWonder, 08.03.2014 at 15:57

If it is changed so that 100% of players have to agree, There will always be that one person who ignores the game settings tab when a turn ends.

It is still best system. People should join games with settings they like. They can't go into a game and change the settings because they like that way. Current system, and every system I have read at the moment, is exploitable. Unanimous agreement isn't.