Multiplayer Hub Logo  
  Powered by Noble Master Games, http://www.noblemaster.com Multiplayer Dragon
  Forums Twitter Dev. Blog ⊕  
Home > Forums

MultiplayerHub.com
» Forums|New Posts
» Twitter
» Dev. Blog
» About
» Contact Us
Showcase
» Age of Conquest
» Demise of Nations
» Retro Commander

































Multiplayer Forums


Board index » Games » Age of Conquest (AOC) » AOC: Feature Requests


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2018, 15:35 
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 22 Oct 2017, 06:35
Posts: 4
I'm sure we have all been teamed up on and alot of you rely on this tactic.... I suggest raising the happiness loss for teaming up. If a player wants to play with no honor, fine. But he should lose more hapiness for doing so. This should apply to players declaring on the same turn as well. There should be no loophole there. Thoughts anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2018, 16:51 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 149
I agree that the happiness penalty should also affect those declaring war at the same time. Even when this happens by accident, there should be something to give the unfortunate defender a little breathing room while his attackers have to waste gold and and action points to replenish their happiness.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 04:42 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 29 Apr 2018, 21:55
Posts: 41
In my opinion, happiness penalties are already high enough. They are so high that there is strategy which is used by many(me included :) ) to declare many wars on people who do not matter(inactives, far away minors and etc.) and become invisible as no one dares to attack you. If you increase penalty then this strat will become even stronger.

We need to find other smarter ways to fight gangers then just increasing happiness hit.

Also many-vs-1 wars are part of gameplay. Of course players who regularly and consistency gang up should be punished but in many cases those wars are result of diplomacy and not regular gangers. Also our history is just full of such wars and such wars are just natural way of things.

About punishing more same turn war declarations - not sure yet. It has own pros and cons


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 11:26 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 24 Jan 2017, 22:02
Posts: 23
I have given this some thought, and I think a per-turn happiness should apply to the agressor, in addition to the current penalties. I believe 1% is just fine, but maybe it could scale 1-2-3-etc with the amount of nations already at war with the target. This should ofc be tested and balanced, maybe with a hard cap, or reduction over time.

The immediate advantage is that this would encourage more quick wars, where a player just grab a couple of provinces and then open peace negotiations. To prevent the target from abusing this, I think the per-turn penalty should shift to the target, if the target rejects peace/ceasefire.

The per-turn penalty would also mitigate the pointless on-paper-only wars, where ppl declare on some hapless, far-away nation without ever exchanging blows.

I think this might as well be a good time to update some diplomatic options. E.g, submissionn should only be an option if at war, and if at war, alliance should not be possible. Start small, right :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 17:33 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 29 Apr 2018, 21:55
Posts: 41
Nudelsoup's idea is creative and interesting. Not only that but he well thought details. I think this mechanic has really good chance to become reality.

But still I see little drawbacks at current state of this design) This still allows paper-wars with inactives as inactives won't be able to accept piece. Also if you have good friend who has little land and no hope to win you can ask him to suffer hit for you).

As was said it will encourage fast wars. And what is the best way to do fast wars? Gang up) I beilive no one wants to declare war and take massive initial happiness hit just to grab just few provinces. We will want to take good chunk of land.

Also even if it will create tendency for fast little land exchange wars, won't it make games too long? Conclusive wars are good wars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 21:35 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 24 Jan 2017, 22:02
Posts: 23
While it might seem like ganging is still a superior strategy, this suggestion would at least mitigate it a lot better than the current, first-turn big hit to happiness. It might also open up for some more interesting choices. If I'm gaining the upper hand in a war, but get's offered peace, can my setup / current situation handle the continuous penalty? And offering a treaty does have a cost in the form of action points, reducing the options for the offering player.

Regarding 'team' plays, where you get a buddy to hold a continuous penalty, it's no different from now, except there is a real penalty inflicted. Also, it would be super interesting to see how the AI would act on this, the amount of wars on solo maps would decrease a lot. AI adaptation is probably the hardest part to implement here.

Maybe Noble could make this as a non-default option for maps without AI to begin with? Then we can test and balance it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 00:02 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 24 Jan 2017, 22:02
Posts: 23
aibar wrote:
As was said it will encourage fast wars. And what is the best way to do fast wars? Gang up) I beilive no one wants to declare war and take massive initial happiness hit just to grab just few provinces. We will want to take good chunk of land.


Regarding this, if a continuous penalty on average will mean shorter duration and non-conclusive wars, the initial happiness penalty will also on average be smaller. If you want to fight someone who is already at war with two others, you simply lean back and prepare for a couple of turns. If you assume others are also lurking on the same intended target, you all risk taking a bigger initial hit if you then declare war the same turn. You could also declare war on someone just to inflict a larger penalty on others, if you can afford the initial penalty.

It will open some interesting choices, and it will mostly benefit smaller players and players being ganged up on. I want to reiterate on this last part, since no-ganking is in the rules, but extremely difficult to enforce properly. Instead of asking people to play nice, it's probably better to discourage that sort of behavior. With a rule change like this, it would be possible to completely remove the no-ganking rule due to the built-in protections.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 10:04 
Investigator
Investigator
User avatar

Joined: 06 Jul 2008, 18:23
Posts: 3831
Location: Planet Earth, most of the time.
nudelsoup wrote:
While it might seem like ganging is still a superior strategy, this suggestion would at least mitigate it a lot better than the current, first-turn big hit to happiness.

I was going to move on after reading this topic but as you can see, I just had to chime in.

Ganging may be a superior tactic for wolves in the wild, fighting for your survival in a real life war or when a 14 year bully is picking on a 9 year kid, where a group of 9 year olds team up again the one 14 year old. But ganging in a game, meant for entertainment, a test of game skills in a competitive environment is cowwwwwardly, disrespectful and there is nothing "Noble" or "superior" to it. It's considered to be an illegal tactic. Used by inferior players, cheaters and on occasions by noobs who are still learning the game.

Let's call it what it is within the scope of the environment that it's being used and not suggest that it is superior in anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 18:42 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 24 Jan 2017, 22:02
Posts: 23
fodder wrote:
... But ganging in a game, meant for entertainment, a test of game skills in a competitive environment is cowwwwwardly, disrespectful and there is nothing "Noble" or "superior" to it. It's considered to be an illegal tactic. Used by inferior players, cheaters and on occasions by noobs who are still learning the game.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but it is a widespread problem. The tax on funding other players was also implemented because some players abused it, funnelling everything to whichever clanmate needed it the most.

This topic would not exist if a) it only happened in low ranks, and b) the rule was enforced, with penalties being dished out. It happens regularly in top end games, with high-ranking clans and players (ab)using this strategy. They are not even trying to hide it, assisting clanmates however possible is just a thing, and has been for a very long time.

But, instead of ranting about widespread, unhandled cheating, let's focus on whether the current rules could be optimized. The goal should be that the system itself would discourage these things, instead of humans evaluating complaints.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 03:04 
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 14 Dec 2011, 21:25
Posts: 458
To clarify it is only illegal if it is done systematically by the same players repeatedly. It is not considered cheating otherwise, but a part of the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 07:33 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 24 Jan 2017, 22:02
Posts: 23
Jacob719 wrote:
To clarify it is only illegal if it is done systematically by the same players repeatedly. It is not considered cheating otherwise, but a part of the game.

Systematically, as in always helping clanmates against any opponent, in lone wolf games?

Asking for a friend \s


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 14:01 
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 14 Dec 2011, 21:25
Posts: 458
Lone w-olf games automatically only allow one per clan, so you must be referring to friends and clans server?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 19:08 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 24 Jan 2017, 22:02
Posts: 23
My mistake, I meant games that are not team games. The flag to limit the amount of same-clan players is relatively new.

My point still stands though, the limit to same-clan players and gold transfer were both put in place for the same reasons. The topic of this thread falls in that same category. My suggestion tries to handle the problem on the system level, I don't know to what extent the administrators have to handle complaints on this topic (ganging), I just assume it would be better for everyone if it never happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 17:48 
Investigator
Investigator
User avatar

Joined: 06 Jul 2008, 18:23
Posts: 3831
Location: Planet Earth, most of the time.
Ganging has been a problem from the very beginning and can be found in most multiplayer games. It would be nice to never have it happen. Player rules and code rules can limit this some but I don't know of anyway to keep it from ever happening. However, I and I'll guess others are open to hearing ideas on this subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: higher hapiness loss for team ups
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 08:32 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 24 Jan 2017, 22:02
Posts: 23
I guess people view this differently. IMO the happiness penalty is not a deterrent for attacking someone already at war with multiple others, which is why I suggested a slightly more radical approach.

Also, let's bring up the new player experience. Due to the relatively small playerbase, combined with the widespread attitude of piling on, it is hard to attract new players. I remember one of my first multiplayer games where Lukas attacked me 4 or 5 times, me winning all but the last, which incidentally happened that one turn that I missed. It took me several months before I took another swing at multiplayer, left with a feeling that I was betrayed by unknown game mechanics.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
cron

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Green Smilies by http://www.greensmilies.com/

Home  |  Forums  |  Twitter  |  Dev. Blog  |  About  |  Contact