MP Alliances functionality?
 

I believe we've addressed this before, but I can't recall the thread or its outcome:

Is there any possibility of tossing in a very basic MP allied victory functionality? I'd think it'd be so simple to implement -- a simple flag that toggles when two players send/agree to an alliance which totals their provinces/research/victory points into a single sum when checking for a win. If there are multiple flags between players, add all together for the determining factor.

Granted, that will require some player-regulation as quick alliances will lead to quick victories (esp. if capitals count as victory points) but even then, I think the option is better than not having it at all. I'm not asking for any SP enhancements like letting the comp ally. But it just seems strange to me that that functionality isn't there for Dominions. I recognize it's not completely thematic and perhaps that's the final answer, but I think the theme could be slightly twisted (ascension as a slightly weaker pantheon) in order to make room for a type of gameplay that players very much want in the game.

Thoughts?

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I don't really see the point. If your already playing as an ally to another player, then surely your capable of deciding on a pre-set victory condition amongst the rest of your group?

Unless you have a real hankering for the ascension message http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The problem with the suggestion is that your going to have players who want to ally but not have their resources totalled up, or players who want alliances in the game, but don't want allied victory to be possible, and a hundred and one other potential victory situations being requested.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

Well, I think the biggest thing is just eliminating the math/uncertainty from the system. I look at the graphs and I can't say for certain whether three players DO have enough victory points/provinces/etc. to win. I'd rather the computer do the counting rather than ask each player to hand-count their provinces/VPs/etc. and then risk accusations of cheating, etc. on top of it all.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I think allied victory with VPs is rather questionable, and should only happen if it was agreed to be possible before the game started.

Allied victory, IMO, is when there is only one alliance left and they just agree "we won".

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

Like I said, it'd require some house-ruling so that a group of players didn't suddenly decide to end a game prematurely by allying out of nowhere. I'm not saying that it's an idea that wouldn't require some discussion. I'm just frustrated by the complete lack thereof at the moment.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

Scoredump file shows the actual counts.

Same information as in the graphs, but gives the actual numbers.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I dont think many games go to completion anyway. They tend to end by majority vote on who won.

Of course if someone WANTS hard clear number then thats easy to setup. I could do that for any game running on my server. It just involves having the postexec command work the scores file.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

Actually this is an interesting question. Team blitz games are extremely fun, its a shame that we cannot set up teams before the game and gain shared vision with our team mates, also our dominion strength wouldn't cause problems for our team mate's nation in that case etc. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I'd like to see this. Story is null in most multiplayer components of strategy games anyway. For example, I can choose zerg while my partner chooses protoss, etc. even though the two are fictionally opposed to each other. There doesn't need to be justification for why a team aspect is available. It's purely for player enjoyment and could only benefit this game and the community. Whether the resources are there to implement it or not is the question though, and I doubt it.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

It just seems that the resources should be fairly inexpensive. The team-algorithm would seem to be a string of pretty simple IF/THENs (IF player A flagged "team A" THEN add X, Y, Z from all other "team A" flags, etc.)

I could be totally wrong here, but a bare-bones system, I'd think, should be fairly easy to implement.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

It'd be easy to do if ally setup would be from the beginning of the game and can't be altered during the game, that would enable teams. It'd cause a lot more problems, though, because you couldn't attack allied provinces or troops, which would be a logistical nightmare if you needed to take troops through allied territory. Unless the allied flag would allow "sneaking" through allied territory so that the ally sees roughly how big an army is moving there but can't do anything else.

The downside would be prevention of the ruthless game of diplomacy and opportunistic backstabbing that MP now entails.

Edi

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I've forgot to mention, that moving through your allies territory with your troops [without attacking their provinces] would be also awesome. We had a 2v2 team game on the Silent Seas map a few days ago, and our team's placement was horrible. I blocked my team mate totally on land, so he couldnt move anywhere only when he took my bordering provinces. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

Not necessarily a downside as the option for ruthless games of diplomacy and opportunistic backstabbing would still be there.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I wouldn't like it if an MP game had pre-set "teams". Diplomacy, forging alliances, trying to figure out who you can trust, etc. is huge part of what makes MP games fun.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

True, there should be an option to offer alliance even when the game is running. Than pre-set teams wouldn't be required at all. However shared vision, moving on your allies territory without attacking the provinces etc. would be a must have still.
On a second thought I doubt that these things will be added, since the concept of the game is somewhat against it. Gods are fighting, so forging alliances are probably out of question. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/Injured.gif

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

Shared vision takes away the possibility to give false information to your "allies", and the other things might have similar effects depending on how they are implemented.

Adding some kind of support for alliances would be good I guess, but you'd have to be careful it doesn't take away something else.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I think that we are talking about different things. I am talking about team vs. team blitz games. There 1 team wins, not 1 player, its a huge difference.

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

Yeah, I'm not talking about blitz games. I'm mainly thinking large PBEM games where there are no pre-set alliances, and the winner is typically an alliance of a few people who stop playing and declare themselves winners when there's no one else left (or they admit defeat).

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

Yeah PDEM games are pretty different in this case. However many people are playing blitzes so the alliance system would be a real benefit for them especially. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I think a Dominion-style alliance system should be very simple and very basic. Like this:

Each player should have an simple on/off switch for each other nation.

Flipping the switch produces a normal message to that player on his next turn.

If the switch is on, then you will never fight against that nation, i.e. your own armies will immediately retreat if attacked by that player (as if routing). [i]Your own[i] armies will stay put instead of attacking a province owned by that nation, except if the procinve does not contain any non-hiding commander. In this way, you can make sure that you do not accidentally fight your ally, but can attack along a common frontier without too much coordination.

In addition, if [i]you[/]i are attacked by that nation, your PD will not fight, but is preserved for the new occupier. Unnrest caused by handing the province over to the new owner should be minimal. Castles are not handed over and treated as if under siege (storming is possible as usual - either for backstabbing or for handing over empty castles). Thus armies can move through each others territories without causing too much damage (i.e. loosing PD and causing lots of unrest.) Gems, Items and Gold can already be sent through the message system, and that is enough in my view. Resources and supplies cannot be moved inside your own territory, so you should not be able to sent it to your allies either.

Best of all: Instant backstabbing is possible, just flip your own switch! After all, the switch only affect the behaviour of your armies! Furthermore, you must trust your allies that they flip their own switch when they have promised to do so, so a full alliance means that both have set the switch to "ON", and reacting to backstabbing takes a turn!

Re: MP Alliances functionality?
 

I would sugguest a simpler, easier to use way of doing it. Each player has the on/off switch for alliances, and unless both nations have it set to allied, then they will fight and act normally. If alliances are on, troops can move through their territory without fighting, and it is impossible to assasinate their commanders (have the game treat them as your own commanders, without being able to command them). Dominion should still spread to/from them as normal though.