Start a new topic

TURNCOAT - player statistic to show % of alliances broken

IDEA: A player statistic visible to other players that shows your % of alliance broken before <x> number of turns.

[Note: exact number of turns to be defined.]

HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below

109 people like this idea

Trojanwhite,  as an idea, we could adjust the rules of alliances, to make this stat more meaningful. So when you make an alliance request you'd propose a level of agreement (casual, don't attack for 1 turn, 2 turns etc). 

24 people like this
I do but there should be a noticeboard as ive encountered lots of dishonourable players who break alliances withoutinforming the ally so this would be a useless stat as often it would be the victim who breaks the alliance after being betrayed

15 people like this
We allknow eventually analliance will be broken because the aim is to win. The point is to tell your ally you are breaki g the alliance BEFORE YOU ATTACK. there are far toomany players with no honour. Ive even had one player who offered me an alliance which i accepted and then he immediately tried to wipe me out so he obviously had no intention of having an alliance at all!

10 people like this
When the purpose of the game is to be the only one left on the map, you must ultimately betray all alliances. And sometimes you must take an allies territory to move through and attack an enemy. The statistic would not be accurate.

8 people like this
I believe a more "useful" info would to know how many allies a player currently has...

8 people like this
Not necessary. Keep your own notebook.

6 people like this
Worst suggestion ever, this is the edge of the game. Not knowing if your allies are trustworthy or not. It's the same thing when you play with friends in the board game. Don't mess this up with rules or statistics!

5 people like this
What is more annoying than breaking alliances is when there are only 3 of you left and 2 obviously have an alliance to gang up on you. I know there is nothing that can be done and it is "part of the game" but I've had this happen so many times lately. No matter how strong I am, it is very difficult to beat 2 other players that are only intent on attacking you.

5 people like this
This suggestion is good, but it would be hard to add. Lets say player 1 and player 2 are in an alliance. If player 1 attacks player 2, and player 2 breaks the alliance. Does player 2 get punished? If an alliance is broken when a player attacks an ally, another problem would occur. Let's say player 1 has a continent secured except for one territory with very few troops owned by player 2. Now if player 1 attacks that territory, he breaks the alliance, even if both players are fine with it. Now, if a system is implemented where the ally who owns the territory can "authorize" a attack, what if the player who owns the territory declines? In this case player 1, who has most of the continent is at a disadvantage and only player 2 would be at a advantage. Now, player 1 has 2 choices. Does he break the alliance or get the extra troops from the continent? In either choice, player 1 is at a disadvantage from having his turncoat percent become higher or from missing the extra troops. Situations like these is what makes the turncoat percent inaccurate or meaningless, even if a player is breaking an alliance because the alliance is only one sided.

4 people like this
Sometimes I have to go through an allies territories to wipe out a weakened player. There should be a way to tell that person their time has not yet come. Yes sooner or later all alliances have to be broken. That should be when the last two players face off against each other.

3 people like this
Reliance on false alliances to win means you are playing a game called suckers. It is not fun. I like a strategy game where people would rather win on skill instead of being a complete pile of rot. It is a leveller to have effective alliances as a strategy. One player should not be able to run the board if other players are awake. That is part of the challenge. I do not want to make a notebook. It is a computer game and creating stats is what computers do. I try to play with honour and appreciate that being a badge that other players can see. The ones who are saying this is a terrible idea are the reasons this stat is important and they hate it because it ruins their chances to ruin other peoples day. If I am playing tabletop I soon know who can be trusted and chances are we will play often. I will remember. Sorry but I do not want to go through that learning process with hundreds of players. I tend to ignore all and will until there is a stat to show who might be worth giving a chance.

3 people like this
Yes. I have turned rabid and went after a player knowing that I am just making it easier for other players to beat them and I will not win. Things like throwing my trools into an attack even though outnumbered just because I want to weaken them enough that somebody else will be able to breakthrough their defenses. Illogical play does not equal cheating. Picking somebody that bugged you and trying to make sure they lose can be a way to finish out a game.

3 people like this
what if your ally is only available attack?

3 people like this
I'm not talking about simply being ganged up on. I'm talking about particular situations where 2 players are acting extremely illogically. Such as they align themselves perfectly so that one can kill a few territories of no significance in one area so the other can sweep me from the board on the other side that it has access to. There are times when it's obvious that a player is using two devices / accounts at the same time as you can see the attacks being coordinated perfectly. And it's always a case where the lesser ranked one is thrown away so that the higher rank account can harvest in the end.

It's very difficult to call out cheaters on here because you'd have to watch the whole game straight through to see it. If it mattered enough, they could watch to see how many times accounts play together and what the results are. But ideally all I want is a way for me to label players myself as cheaters so I can remember them. Not everyone that beats me is a cheater. Sometimes others just get heated and go all out on me. But one guy destroying himself to partially eliminate me so the other can just sweep the rest and win the entire game? No way. There are definitely some games where there's pawn accounts used to help aid a cheating player.

2 people like this
Live chat is a great idea now you talking real strategy. It would make the game more interesting.

2 people like this
Login or Signup to post a comment