#Shared Victory? The Alliance issue

18 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

hard tinsel
#

A problem I've been trying to discuss is the backwards design of the Alliance system. EL fixed the issue by introducing a shared Victory option. Which is great btw. It makes coop play actually worth it.

This game doesn't have that.

So right now alliances are a facade. Cool and neat bonuses, but a facade. It's essentially a willing accomplice who boosts another player with little to gain as there can be only one winner. Why would the player ahead boost someone below them? Since all are opponents in the theatre.

It's unhealthy for the game, I believe.

A lot of feedback that I have recieved suggests that alliances are OP and there is a lot to gain. Yes, but is it utilized "right"? Let me explain. Why co-op if it has to break since fame rush is the most straightforward way to win? With that in mind, you are run the risk of inadvertently helping the top players reach their goal. You may suggest you get something too, but since it's percentage based those with the highest numbers gain the best of those benefits, not the weaker players. Should alliances be really run like this? It suggests yet again that Co-op is a facade.

Let's discuss it.

brazen perch
#

I agree with this sentiment. Personally, I’d like to see shared victories be a civic choice, something like a choice between collective victory for allies or a fame boost for players choosing to only give themselves the victory (and thus incentive for their former allies to no longer align with them)

hard tinsel
#

However I am fine with it just being an ingame option. That way it is never force imposed for those who doesn't wanna deal with it

#

Because right now alliances are used primarily for selfish purposes.

#

Would be nice if u run into a gnarly situation and you form an alliance with ur buddy who's doing better, then u can still play and help and then share a win even. Would make it more impactful and meaningful

#

As a casual 4X player, coop is a neat feature

plucky dragon
#

The simplest solution IMHO is to have the game run as normal, then when an end game condition trigger, allied players average their fame score and count as only one player to select "the winner". It would require some work on the endgame UI but other than that sounds feasible. Maybe a toggle on the game setup menus to allow allied victories or not so the player knows they are there.

hard tinsel
#

reduces frustration and the burden of the competitve nature

hard tinsel
plucky dragon
#

Lets hope Amp can address it or at least let us do it with the mod tools

hard tinsel
#

Best if they address it. They are the designers after all.
But making it modding available would be a good idea too, just not the optimal one.

#

I think HK deserves optimal solutions

quartz wigeon
#

I often give money and units to AI that is vassalized by someone much stronger and my closest competitor, these units almost always mean they will declare independence and then cause war which then weakens my direct competitor. But this really only works if you are decently technologically ahead so more powerful units can actually make a difference.

But I agree there should definitely be more benefits from helping plus the weaker AI you have been helping once they get stronger they very quickly start hating you... So silly tbh

floral ferry
#

Last I heard they said this feature would be difficult to implement, hopefully they can get around to it at some point, though

#

In ES2 I heard there's a limit to the number of factions in an alliance so you can make coalitions vying for victory, but I don't think alliances work that way in HK

#

My guess is that that is one of the bigger hurdles to alliance victories since they would have to change how alliances work

hard tinsel
#

Sad. Because currently the problem with Alliances (as stated) is a huge deal imo