Ally end option

In many world games it happens that players decides to ally end. First they have to send peace and then make alliances and then this make all the players winner.This really takes too much time. My idea is that there should be an option in which any player asks for ally end(like players do for settings change) and if all the players accept that the game should end at the time.

I agree and support that proposal, very well thought out Pakistani

Support

+1

Groundbreaking. viciously creative. pakistani tiger moves worlds in his most recent post.

Written by Lukyan, 26.04.2020 at 12:21

Groundbreaking. viciously creative. pakistani tiger moves worlds in his most recent post.

Thanks but its not that great

Thats a good idea, but have you thought of the fact that we don't know which day is truly Sunday? We just trusted calendars and institutions to keep track of it for millenia.

+1

Full support

Good idea

Agree!

It sucks to be the last player eliminated before the ally end. Especially when the game settings originally state "no allies." It's cheating.

Written by DancesWithWolves, 28.04.2020 at 13:48

It sucks to be the last player eliminated before the ally end. Especially when the game settings originally state "no allies." It's cheating.

Seconded. While the suggested feature would be useful and save considerable time in the end-game, it should be restricted so that if an ally end is not otherwise possible (that is to say, if the game settings are locked and the maximum number of alliances is smaller than the number of players less one), then it remains impossible with this feature also.

The problem with this is, they'll have to go the "majority" route for an ally-end option in order for ally ends to be executed. But then you end up in the same situation you have in regular games where people refuse to accept time changes/max ally changes and you have to wait 6 turns before it happens. What if people refuse to accept ally-end option and you can't get majority to accept because secretly they're planning to kill you or fight each other longer to get more sp? It all comes full circle again and you still end up with the same long process

Written by Black Vortex, 01.05.2020 at 10:10

The problem with this is, they'll have to go the "majority" route for an ally-end option in order for ally ends to be executed. But then you end up in the same situation you have in regular games where people refuse to accept time changes/max ally changes and you have to wait 6 turns before it happens. What if people refuse to accept ally-end option and you can't get majority to accept because secretly they're planning to kill you or fight each other longer to get more sp? It all comes full circle again and you still end up with the same long process

i think this is a good idea, but not to solve these issues, it's to solve the other technical issues of non-prems being unable to propose those settings for example, or afk players, i think a 90% majority setting for ally end option is a good idea

Or we can make afks just not count for these kind of votes, i'm sure it's programmable and reasonable

I hate this proposal, it takes away a classic element of the game

Every player in the game should be able to see which players voted to ally-end and which ones didn't. That way, no one can troll by choosing not to ally-end and extending the game unnecessarily. The other players can simply kill everyone who has chosen not to ally-end.

Written by Tribune Aquila, 21.05.2020 at 18:44

I hate this proposal, it takes away a classic element of the game

Which classical element?

Players support allyfaging but not prizes for top 3 players and clans, very nice..