Put a limit on the number of possible winners in unlocked games.

Would make for some very interesting situations.

from Sins Forums

I posted this some time ago, but will bring it up again.  https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/356786

We need a feature for FFA's which will allow the host to define the number of possible victors.  This could be implemented into the Locked Teams field in game options.  In Age of Empires this was called "Allied Victory."

It would allow:

Locked Teams - Team are predefined and simple.  No politics here.

1 Victor - Teams are unlocked and only 1 player can win.

2 Victors - Teams are unlocked and only 2 players can win.

3 Victors, etc.

This could add a new level of political depth (online at least) to this "4X" game.

As it stands, there is no game which involves the deplomacy screen to it's full potential.  Sure, you have the Unlocked Teams FFA, but these typically involve everyone forming quick, easy, and permanent alliances in the beginning, one alliance is vastly stronger than the others and they claim an easy win.

Imagin the the political decisions you would be faced with beloning to an strong alliance of 3 players, but knowing only 2 could actually claim victory.  Someone is going to be betrayed.

When I play a FFA, I want a game of politics, chaos, conspiracies, and I expect that ultimately one player will come out on top. Currently, we can have FFA games with some of this, but it seems to come to a premature end when that 10 person FFA ends with 7 people claiming victory.

PS - I've heard the next expansion is supposed to add to the political aspects of the game.  I expect to purchase the future expansions, but I think something this simple should be included in the base game.  Especially considering the "4X" advertising the base game received.

Currently, if your in a FFA and every player is trying to win they will all just form a vast alliance and every single player will win.  Thus, any good FFA is dependent upon players who are not trying to win, which mean no serious FFA will ever be possible without a feature like I've suggested.

Did this suggestion make it into the diplomacy beta yet?  Can we expect to have this basic feature in the expansion that focusus on diplomacy and politics?  Or will unlocked FFAs continue to be a broken game mode for those who want to "goof around" instead of "play to win?"

EDIT - Change title to be more descriptive.

8,798 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

I've never heard of every player in a game allying and winning instantly. If it is a theoretical problem instead of a practical one, I doubt anything will be done about it. Or does this happen a lot to everyone not me?

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

Another way of doing it is to have risk like missions. Each mission gives points, the person at the end with the most points wins.

 

So missions could be like:

 

kill opponent 5/red/vasari

Create a trade route 10 planets long (including other player's/excluding other players)

have the greatest culture rating in the game

Hold Planet x for x amount of time

Have control of planet Y at the end of the game

Control 1 ice planet, 1 volcano and one dessert planet at the end of the game

 

The list could go on and on. Some missions will coincide with other players' missions, some will conflict with their missions.  

 

To make it more interesting, missions could be given all at the start, or distributed throughout the game changing the political makeup.

 

The points system would be beneficial because it would allow players to decide what missions they wish to accomplish. Example, if your mission is to kill player x, but player x can help you achieve all your other missions, you could win the game by not completing that mission.

 

 

This could then lead into interesting espionage abilities, where you are trying to find out what missions the other players have.

 

Maybe this idea deserves it's own thread.

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Shadowdragon970, reply 1
I've never heard of every player in a game allying and winning instantly.

That's because most who participate in unlocked games are playing to be silly and just "goof around."  Anyone who plans to "play to win" will play a locked game.  Hopefully my suggestion would bring some of the "play to win" people into unlocked games.

 

Another way of doing it is to have risk like missions. Each mission gives points, the person at the end with the most points wins.

I'm not suggesting an entire new game mode, I'm just suggesting limiting the number of possible winners in unlocked games.

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

You know, I'm not sure if it did or not. I remember hearing something about it...

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

If I may quote from Darvin3 in the original post I made many months ago:

I'd agree; this is a fundamental flaw with unlocked teams as it's implemented currently. There only needs to be one loser. While the AI's are a bit psychotic (to say the least) and this keeps things interesting in singleplayer, in multiplayer humans just end up forming an overpowering team and claiming victory.

Hopefully the next expansion addresses this, and I agree limiting the number of winners is the best way to achieve this.

Words of wisdom.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

if this is a real problem, it needs to be addressed.  An unlocked game will only work if the number of winners is limited to 1 or 2.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

I would guess the community at large assumes this is the way the game already works.

As an example consider this unlocked game I played recently:  I quicly offered alliances to everyone (why not?).  2 of the more resonable players* in the game quickly accepted my offer, making it a 3v1v1v1.

Towards the end one of my opponents began telling me that I would lose because my allies would betray me.  I explained that we would all 3 win together.  He then complained about the game being unfair and quit.  We won.

 

My point being that many of the community (who may not visit the forums) expect that this is the way the game already behaves.  They are supprised when this is not the case.

 

* I consider my allies reasonable because it was clear they never even thought of betraying the 3 player alliance we had formed.  We were feeding each other and everything.  I'm confident we would have taken a 4th into our alliance (making it a 4v1v1) if any of the others had been smart enough to accept our offers.

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

I have been advocating the option of bargaining as a diplomacy option. Currently, there is no actual negotiation. You just drive up a stat to get something from the opponent. 

A bargaining table involves putting up an offer which the other side will evaluate to see if its balanced. If the other party is pissed, it will probably push harder to make it balance to his side better. Friendlier empires will settle with a tit-for-tat or even a slight loss if the collective strength improves, or if the reward is of strategic value.

A bargaining table would allow to put up something else with the offer to sweeten the deal, or like the poster uggested, bully the other side to avoid dire consequences. If the other empire is military weaker, an 'accept or we will crush you' threat would have a chance to be accepted, at least to try to buy some time to get stronger to become able to get off the enemy grip.

For instance, a fleet of 10 hoshikos could be a deal sweetener for a vasari or advent AI to accept a pact, instead of the hard 'relationship score' limit. 

Likewise, if an AI is unsatisfied with some pact, it could say 'this is not working for us', but give a 5-minute countdown for the player to offer something to keep up the pact. It could be cold, hard cash/metal/crystal, or a % of the income of a planet, one or more trade routes, or even a tribute over the whole empire income. Ships should be also exchangeable, to get access to otherwise exclusive skills.

 

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top

I haven't visited this thread yet?  Well:

/signed

I think the person who quoted me summed my position up nicely.  As far as I'm concerned, I will not play unlocked teams until this is implemented.  As far as I'm concerned, all the new mission systems are a wasted effort if this doesn't make it in.  This should be priority #1 for Ironclad right now.

Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Darvin3, reply 10
As far as I'm concerned, I will not play unlocked teams until this is implemented.  As far as I'm concerned, all the new mission systems are a wasted effort if this doesn't make it in.  This should be priority #1 for Ironclad right now.

 

 

Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top

I fully agree with this suggestion, just in case I have not said so before. I don't think I even saw very many unlocked games in my online times. which is a pity, because it is or could be a very interesting a nice game mode. you know, all the trickery, the stealth, real life diplomacy, alliances. but it tends to get skewed and with this it would be a bit more in balance again.

Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top

Agreeing with the 1 Victor, 2 Victor, etc... options. Backstabbing would be a far more crucial than it is now.