Forming alliances in-game + seeing a list of alliances

mehere101 · Post by **mehere101** » 04 Feb 2007, 00:35

Just make it so allied victory only takes effect if both teams set alliance. I seriously doubt people are stupid enough to cooperate with someone so they can lose

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 04 Feb 2007, 03:58

Guessmyname wrote:People are always stupid enough

Then it's their problem, not the game's. They could as well go play The Sims and give up war games altogether.

Abokasee · Post by **Abokasee** » 04 Feb 2007, 11:01

or go play online FPS and have there skill measured by there ability to snipe people as they spawn at a spawn point

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 04 Feb 2007, 22:36

Exactly.

I just don't want any senseless limits to allying.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 24 May 2007, 16:27

Bump.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 24 May 2007, 19:39

Where is betalord.

Spring needs more backstabbing =-o

AF · Post by AF » 24 May 2007, 20:29

This isnt a lobby feature, betalord has nothign todo with this.

This is a lua widget request. Tobi/trepan etc have already said that its possible to change alliances ingame but there's no GUI ingame with which todo so.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 20 Jul 2007, 20:20

Bump...

Btw, it should be visible somewhere, how often a player has cancelled an alliance that he has made himself. So, if you often cancel and backstab your allies, nobody will bother allying you, when they see you aren't a reliable ally.

DZHIBRISH · Post by **DZHIBRISH** » 31 Jul 2007, 01:08

maybe when u ally someone both of ur economies produce more.. say when u ally a player you start recieving 100%+?% percent of eco income if the ally has ?% compared to ur income...or some sort of equation maing it worthwhile allying but in a way so that no ally gets unfair bonuses no matter what is the size of his allies ecos.

AF · Post by AF » 31 Jul 2007, 03:57

That would requir a mod gadget, go pester the modder in charge of the mdo you want it in

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 01 Aug 2007, 19:07

quantum! i command yu ot omaek lua wiget

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 01 Aug 2007, 19:08

WAIT WAIT I LIED

don't make it a lua widget, i cant run LUA

so.... which one of you fine devs is giong to step up to the plate here B)

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 01 Aug 2007, 19:13

Why can't you run LUA, Dragon?

PRO_rANDY · Post by **PRO_rANDY** » 22 Aug 2007, 01:23

bump

make it so u can (un)ally in game ota style plz!

manored · Post by **manored** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:56

JJ45 wrote:
manored wrote:Make dragon teeth.

Or we could just make ally victory possible (if everone left is in the same alliance the game ends) and to prevent everone allying to everone right after start we can give each player a target (someone he cannot ally with).
No, that target thing sounds stupid. I don't think this is needed, as I doubt people are stupid enough to just create a single big alliance.

No? Your objective is to win and the enemy's too, and the quickest way to do that is to eliminate enemies... a strong alliance wouldnt have reasons to not accept a new ally since that would be one less enemy, and a player wouldnt have a reason to not enter a strong alliance since that would be a whole lot of less enemies. There must be something to give everone a reason to fight, like there is in real life. Maybe (This is a idea) we could introduce something that would limit the amount of players that can win the game, maybe some artifact that you must have in your control to be considered winner. Beside having the artifact you would have to destroy all enemy forces. To make stuff more interesting we could have players having diferent artifacts to control, but that could make the alliances to be formed to obvius... only experimentation can trully tell... :)

Ralith · Post by **Ralith** » 30 Aug 2007, 02:05

Artificial restrictions like that would only anger people. In practice, the prestige gained from beating (or even challenging) a large number of opponents with a smaller alliance, or even solo, matters more to people than some artificial 'win' condition. By your logic, we should have world peace.

[XIII]Roxas · Post by **[XIII]Roxas** » 30 Aug 2007, 06:09

This is all well and good, however, human nature is always wanting MORE, MORE, MORE. Therefor, that is your backstabbing mechanism. Players have not enough minerals, so they attack their allies to get enough minerals.

No one is your 'friend'. Alliances in Spring, as it's more of a tactical sense than strategic, should be more Allies of Convenience, not deep-seated allies, sticking to the win.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 07 Sep 2007, 12:40

manored wrote:No? Your objective is to win and the enemy's too, and the quickest way to do that is to eliminate enemies... a strong alliance wouldnt have reasons to not accept a new ally since that would be one less enemy, and a player wouldnt have a reason to not enter a strong alliance since that would be a whole lot of less enemies. There must be something to give everone a reason to fight, like there is in real life. Maybe (This is a idea) we could introduce something that would limit the amount of players that can win the game, maybe some artifact that you must have in your control to be considered winner. Beside having the artifact you would have to destroy all enemy forces. To make stuff more interesting we could have players having diferent artifacts to control, but that could make the alliances to be formed to obvius... only experimentation can trully tell... :)

Artificial limits = gay

Not every player is the kind of a philosophist as you describe. If they thought that way, then explain to me, why this doesn't happen in, say, Command & Conquer games?

[XIII]Roxas wrote:This is all well and good, however, human nature is always wanting MORE, MORE, MORE. Therefor, that is your backstabbing mechanism. Players have not enough minerals, so they attack their allies to get enough minerals.

No one is your 'friend'. Alliances in Spring, as it's more of a tactical sense than strategic, should be more Allies of Convenience, not deep-seated allies, sticking to the win.

That's the point, you shouldn't ally someone you don't trust. It's just like the end of WW2 all over again.

You should primarily ally people you know, and your clanmates, etc. or if you force a crushed player to join your forces, you could always occupy his base with tanks, to ensure he remains loyal.

Pressure Line · Post by **Pressure Line** » 08 Sep 2007, 01:02

JJ45 wrote:That's the point, you shouldn't ally someone you don't trust. It's just like the end of WW2 all over again. You should primarily ally people you know, and your clanmates, etc. or if you force a crushed player to join your forces, you could always occupy his base with tanks, to ensure he remains loyal.

or nuclear mines :D

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 27 Feb 2008, 05:24

Necropost!

I have a fresh idea:
Everyone starts out neutral, in peace with each other. People could then propose alliances or declare wars. Everyone would also have these options:

[x] Auto declare war on allies' enemies
[x] Auto propose alliance to allies' allies
[x] Auto accept shared victory*

* Shared victory means ending the game when only one alliance is left. If auto accept is turned off, every player is asked whether they want to end the game, when all enemies have been cleared.

Spring RTS Engine

Forming alliances in-game + seeing a list of alliances

hmm

Re: Forming alliances in-game + seeing a list of alliances