Inactive Topic Improvement:Prevent players from abandoning their alliance during World Wonders phase

Thane Badger

Phrourach
Proposal:
Limit the ability of players to leave an alliance while they are building World Wonders

Reason:
To prevent the sabotage of an entire alliance by turncoats or moles, undoing the combined effort of the whole team over the entire duration of the game.

Details:
When the age of Wonders begins, just as the world is closed to new members restrictions apply to the migration to and from alliances.

No player may change alliances until one alliance has gained 4 Wonders


Alternative options:
1) No player may leave an alliance unless an alliance administrater allows them to.
2) The condition only applies to alliances that have begun to construct a world wonder.
3) Players may not delete their account while they are still in an alliance under the World Wonder restriction, they must leave the alliance first.

Visual Aids:
None

Balance:
Under the no migration whatsoever condition it requires that an alliance build a strong and dedicated team rather than relying on a huge franchise of medicore players they can use as replacements.

Abuse Prevention:

Major: Needing permission to leave prevents one alliance sabotaging the efforts of another through underhand tactics. Players would have to negotiate their departure by giving up critical cities.

Under the blanket no migration condition, alliances could not rotate back up players to send resources to, or cast favor on the Wonders.


Summary:

Player need confidence that a year or more of effort can't be undone in a moment by a rogue player. Too many worlds end with this kind of sabotage.


Please note:

Minimum Requirements
The idea needs to have at least 2 of the following.
Needs to have at least 150 views.
Needs to have at least 40 posts.
The original poster has to maintain their idea and make sure suggestion to improve it are reflected in the OP.
The thread rating must have 4 stars or more, and 25 people or more.

If you support this idea please rate this thread.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser27700

Guest
Why would you leave an alliance if you are winning? :D

Seems silly to me
 

Thane Badger

Phrourach
It seems there a lot of silly people out there then. To some people winning isn't everything, especially if they aren't going to play again. Making a grand exit becomes more of a priority.

For the latest player to pull this stunt, the reason he gave was because he didn't get support from the rest of his alliance when he sent a CS attack against the leader of another alliance from 16 hours away. It didn't need too much encouragement from the leader of the other alliance to get him to change sides.

If that's all part of the game, then keep your game. I wont spend another 16 months playing a game where that kind of situation can occur.

It's all too easy to multi account on this game as well. I've been offered accounts by players in other alliances that are qutting because they have an issue within their alliance. If so much emphasis is placed upon team effort then the fabric of the team needs to be protected from sabotage in order for players to have confidence in the method.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It seems there a lot of silly people out there then. To some people winning isn't everything, especially if they aren't going to play again. Making a grand exit becomes more of a priority.

For the latest player to pull this stunt, the reason he gave was because he didn't get support from the rest of his alliance when he sent a CS attack against the leader of another alliance from 16 hours away. It didn't need too much encouragement from the leader of the other alliance to get him to change sides.

If that's all part of the game, then keep your game. I wont spend another 16 months playing a game where that kind of situation can occur.

It's all too easy to multi account on this game as well. I've been offered accounts by players in other alliances that are qutting because they have an issue within their alliance. If so much emphasis is placed upon team effort then the fabric of the team needs to be protected from sabotage in order for players to have confidence in the method.
You are right Thane ! And for others if this was happened to you you will be angry that one silly idiot leave his brothers and all the time spy and revealing your secrets to sim players and 1year game goes to dust in one second. Regards X
 

DeletedUser

Guest
A world have just died cause one disgruntled player changed side, while his alliance was rushing to finish the last level on their world wonder. Causing his new alliance to win the game. It is part of the game yes, but what an anticlimax. Should the end of the game really be like that? Having spent so much gold, time and effort on the game, and having it end like this, seems like I have wasted all of it. I do not need to win to have fun, but having the game end this way, makes it all meaningless. Why should i keep wasting my time. Why should I try again in another world, when this could happen once more. Why should i spend money on something that ends with such an anticlimax.

Having an option to hold on to a city on a ww island should be an option. Yes they can be conquered, and that is all good, but having a player leave like that, gives no one a chance to defend against a hostile takeover.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Espionage and sabotage is a part of the game. And actually every good alliance should have own spies in other competitive (and thus dangerous) alliances. Even better if there will be saboteurs - though such players are far more difficult to find than ordinary spies.

Besides there shouldn't be a problem to conquer cities of saboteur on core islands for any more-less good alliance. The only problem could be if saboteur goes in VM - but it lasts not that long.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Besides there shouldn't be a problem to conquer cities of saboteur on core islands for any more-less good alliance. The only problem could be if saboteur goes in VM - but it lasts not that long.

Conquering his city would not be a problem, if there had been time. The min. he left the alliance, his new alliance would win. Nothing could be done to prevent it. There was no time to conquer a city any more. No one else than his previous alliance, would be able to win the race on that last wonder his new alliance was building. Both where at the last level of the wonder, not much time to go. Not enough time to take a city and foil it that way.
there was nothing anyone could do.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Conquering his city would not be a problem, if there had been time. The min. he left the alliance, his new alliance would win. Nothing could be done to prevent it. There was no time to conquer a city any more. No one else than his previous alliance, would be able to win the race on that last wonder his new alliance was building. Both where at the last level of the wonder, not much time to go. Not enough time to take a city and foil it that way.
there was nothing anyone could do.

What i can say? Well done (by your opponents). :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Why would you leave an alliance if you are winning? :D

Seems silly to me

If I become a mod, can I make stupid comments too?

We were not winning, we were stopping another alliance from winning so we could keep fighting. And we were winning the race for the last WW.

The player in question here decided to screw over his own alliance by joining the enemy and then hitting VM after saying he will never play this game again. I wonder what the point is of fighting for months to create a safe area by taking enemy cities, then waste tons of slots to colonise those damn islands and waste even more cities to put defence on those islands if 1 crappy player (with as many bp as I make in a week, who never did an active conquest and who thinks he deserves help for his CS on a random city while there were dozens of CS sailing to enemy WW cities) can just undo all the work the good players did over these months. The good players should have some kind of say in the actions of this loser (actions that involve the WW).

This WW stuff favors the simmers too much, maybe it would be better if you have to feed them abp and enemy conquests instead of resources. I'm sure the simmers will find a way to abuse this too, but it will at least make the WW phase more entertaining for the fighters.
 

Thane Badger

Phrourach
Well done having a pointless game where lots of people leave because it's all about stabbing people in the back rather than actually playing on the board.

People blame innogames creating too many worlds for the shrinkage in players.

I'm more inclined to blame the prevelant attitude that screwing people over is to be admired and encouraged, to the extent that the rules should ensure that they are able to do so right to the most critical point of the game.

I'll join the shrinkage and leave the sociopaths to their playground.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
...if 1 crappy player (with as many bp as I make in a week, who never did an active conquest and who thinks he deserves help for his CS on a random city while there were dozens of CS sailing to enemy WW cities) can just undo ...

1. Why such a player was taken in alliance?
2. Why such a player was allowed colonize/conquer on one of core islands?

Looks like obvious leadership mistake for me in this case.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
None of us can answer that, as he was not in our alliance, but in one that we where allied with and had been working together with.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Every player should have the right to leave his/hers alliance when they desire. I know it's considered 'unsporting conduct' when they do so, but some players do it.

I don't think this idea will be taken into full consideration because of the reason(s) above.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
During the ww phase, I think it would be fair if the players city's he has on active ww islands would not automatically go with him if he just left. But perhaps the city entered a stage of being controlled by the rest of the alliance or the wonder it self for 48 hours or so, where a conquest could be made by the alliance owning the ww island. So that all was not lost. If it was done so that player could not join another alliance while the city was in this state, it would also prevent abuse, where a player could jump in and out of the alliance, without destroying the wonder.
 

Thane Badger

Phrourach
1. Why such a player was taken in alliance?
2. Why such a player was allowed colonize/conquer on one of core islands?

Looks like obvious leadership mistake for me in this case.

Hindsight is a wonderfull light.
Whatever the specifics of "this case" why invest so much time in a game that can be so easily undermined?

What happened in this case is the result of another ongoing issue.
This alliance had to build completely new World Wonder Islands after another alliance instigated a random investigation of all their (and our) top players. This required that they start building new world wonder Islands with about 2 weeks notice after a player on all their prepared Islands was banned.

Another underhand tactic that has a massive impact on players who have done nothing wrong.

There is a huge inbalance in this game between the actions of individual players and the impact it has on their allaince dduring the World Wonder phase. World Wonders was something that was introduced to the game after it had started.

People quickly found ways to exploit the dependence on the alliance structure. Just because Innogames had not anticipated that kind of exploitation, it doesn't follow that it then becomes set in stone as "part of the game".

That why the improvement forum exists. Nothing is "part of the game" if people don't want it to be.

Innogames need to decide if they want to run a game for cynical people who revel in quick fix sabotage over those who would prefer to play the game on the board. through the battle system.

If Innogames are indeed all about the money I think that they would prefer a world continues and people continue to build armies and fight for cities rather than see one side poaching them from the other side instead of playing on the map.

The option for sabotage is still there under the suggested improvement but at least it would require an enemy to actually launch an attack and capture the city, giving some meaning to the effort of creating a safe zone around world wonders and in building up forces to react to a seige on your Wonder Island cities.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Guest
OK. Say your idea passed.....and the person cannot leave the alliance, whats to stop that disgruntled alliance member from emptying his city so the enemy can land a CS?
 

Thane Badger

Phrourach
Every player should have the right to leave his/hers alliance when they desire. I know it's considered 'unsporting conduct' when they do so, but some players do it.

I don't think this idea will be taken into full consideration because of the reason(s) above.

Then the option for players to be released by the alliance leaders could apply. No ne would want to keep a player on their World Wonder Islands that didn't want to be there. They could simply give up their city and then leave.

Of course they could always just go inactive too but at least then their alliance would be informed of an attack by tripwires.
 
Last edited:

Thane Badger

Phrourach
OK. Say your idea passed.....and the person cannot leave the alliance, whats to stop that disgruntled alliance member from emptying his city so the enemy can land a CS?

Even if a CS lands you still have 24 hours to break the seige once your tripwires are activated. Another alliance also has to be within 48 hours range to launch a CS

If I had a disgruntled member of my alliance that refused to allow tripwires in his city, I would initiate an immeadiate conquest of his city. Which did actually happen with us just before the World Wonders started.

Finding one single loophole that isn't covered by the idea doesn't mean the idea hasn't got any merit.

Really the only condition where a player could cancel out any advantage this improvement could provide would be if they they arranged a conquest of their city with an enemy to happen a few minutes before they went into VM, even then their own alliance could still anticipate that they may be planning something and take out his city as soon as he activated VM.

What this idea would prevent is an action that has a major effect on the game which cannot be countered under any circumstances. Once a player leaves an alliance the effect is instant. Giving away a city at least requires a process that can be reacted to.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
24 hours?
12 on speed 2 and 3. And if he sends back the tripwires/support 1 min before the CS lands....the enemy alliance have timed insane amount of birs to land seconds after the CS...

Do you want founder/leader to decide when people can delete their account and restart too?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top