Ingame messages- totally n00bish question - Page 2

Ironhawk · #11 October 6th, 2008, 12:29 AM

Are we playing the same game? How are you two relying on "allies" in a game where only one person can win? In all my MP games I only *very* rarely come across someone willing to fully ally with me. It just doesnt make any sense in the context of the game designed for a single winner.

Skirmisher · #12 October 6th, 2008, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironhawk

Are we playing the same game? How are you two relying on "allies" in a game where only one person can win? In all my MP games I only *very* rarely come across someone willing to fully ally with me. It just doesnt make any sense in the context of the game designed for a single winner.

I'm still new at MP but people have said that alliances can in fact win games. Granted thier isn't one winner. But I think if you look closely at alot of the MP games,they just get called when a person or persons are well out in front.

If people want to have NAP's with people, all the power to them.
I'm just not the type of person to become involved with casual "maybe I'll stab you in the back, maybe I won't relationships" So I prefer to treat everybody as an enemy unless they are cooperating with me.

You said that alliances were rare but even that indicates that at least one person was willing to be your ally.

Lingchih · #13 October 6th, 2008, 05:52 AM

NAP 3s are a normal part of the game. You enter into one when you first encounter a neighbor, unless you are totally brutal. They can later be extended to longer NAPs, or even to a full-fledged alliance. Or, you can stab them in the back quickly if they appear weak.

Sombre · #14 October 6th, 2008, 06:02 AM

There is absolutely room in dom3 for alliances. Games are almost always called before that "You have won" message comes up, so the fact it can only come up for one person is irrelevant.

llamabeast · #15 October 6th, 2008, 06:45 AM

Yes, but if an alliance is allowed to win then that isn't really fair. They're playing to a different, and much easier, victory condition than everyone else. It also removes the tension of "when are we going to have to turn on each other?" which I think adds an interesting element to Dom3 games.

In any games I organise, at least (which recently has been none), alliance victories are certainly not allowed. Unfortunately this is difficult to implement in practice, because once the alliance is doing really well, generally people can't be bothered to then fight amongst themselves. Xietor and I won as an alliance in Alpaca, which makes me a hypocrite.

Sombre · #16 October 6th, 2008, 07:04 AM

You can't really tell people allied victory is not allowed. They'll still ally if they want to and then give up the game once they've won. Whether they are declared victor or not is clearly far less important than the fun of the game.

I would personally pay more attention to the way people play than whether they win or not. If they always join an alliance and do well because they don't actually have to deal with serious odds, it's not that impressive. They're also likely to be allied against.

When we start up Warhammerama because there are only 4 nations it makes sense to just say to people 'hey this is a free-for-all', try and win. But if two people want to ally and play that way I'm not going to complain. I'll try and ally against them if it will help me do well though.

Actually I think I'll make a thread for Warhammerama so we can discuss any special rules etc.

llamabeast · #17 October 6th, 2008, 07:06 AM

Yeah, well you're right that you can't practically tell people they can't form permanent alliances. I still think it should be emphasised though that the idea is there is one winner and only one. It's something KO has mentioned as being part of his idea of the game, and more importantly I think it's good for the gameplay.

thejeff · #18 October 6th, 2008, 08:05 AM

Skirmisher,
Just be aware that refusing a NAP is often assumed to be a declaration of war. Expect to be attacked by most of your neighbors early on if you hold out for full alliances or nothing, as it will be assumed you don't want the NAP because it will keep you from attacking.

A NAP is really just a declaration that you're not at war and will give formal notice before you start one. It gives you a temporarily secure border so you can concentrate on more pressing enemies. And can be the foundation for better relations later as players see how the early wars shake out. I would guess that even most alliances are born out of the need to beat a common enemy, and are thus temporary rather than an intent for a joint victory.

Most players

Skirmisher · #19 October 6th, 2008, 11:59 AM

I understand where your all coming from, after all most of you have been playing awhile. Just playing a MP game I fully expect to be attacked all the time so that's not really an issue. Will I feel differently in a couple years about it? Maybe. Some have indicated that Alliances where not intended to win, but posts here indicate that it does happen.