Show players reliability

I got this idea from reading the last topic about alliances, peace and war. There are also some 'backstabbers' in this game that like to ally in the first place and then attack. Its a tactic offcource and its all in the game, but i think that players must have a certain 'reliability status'. When someone has broken his alliances many times, it will show the status 'unreliable'. If he asks for a alliance again, then its up to the other player to decide whether he should ally or not with someone that cannot be trusted. You can get a better status, when you ally someone and finish the game with him. You get a worse status when you break your alliance before the game has ended. I think there are even some players who like to get the status of 'unreliable', witch can be a extra goal in the game.

There are points for winning a game with a alliance (lets say: +1 for every player you are allied with at the end of a game). And there are losing points when you break a alliance (lets say: -10 for every alliance you during a game).

There are a few statuses you can get:

Pirate: Not to be trusted at all Score of -50 or lower

Unreliable: Is not to be trusted Score between 0 and -50

Unknown: Did not have much games played with alliances Score between 0 and +20

Reliable: Can be trusted Score between +20 and +50

Loyal: Is not going to break his alliance Score of +50 and higher

Maybe there needs to be a other scoring system or status names, but this is just a example and its about the idea of the status itself.

I support this idea, I hate when me and another player get to the end of a game after each doing a massive amount of fighting and winning, but they decide to attack just so they can get more SP.

Being able to know if your ally is reliable would be a nice feature.

I think this would encourage backstabbing. I mean, people will ally each other anyways because they are little scared sheep, but with a bad alliance score they can just say "hey you had it coming" and somewhat justify their backstabbing with saying he should have known better.

I like any idea that increases variety in the game. Any feature that allows us to research players to plan accordingly, top strategies, rank, sp, etc will improve this.

Also perhaps backstabber's would attain loyal or reliable status so as to deceive there opponent. Or genuinely reliable players will choose to abandon an alliance knowing their rating will still be high.

Learster don't wants it because he always betrays.

Support
but Unknown can be change to: Mixed

I support this idea, it'd help me figure out who I shouldn't ally. :p

I support, I've never backstabbed , but there has been some games where I had to ask my ally(s) whether we should fight or not after most of the players left, some agreed to break the alliance and fight and some did not, so getting a bad reputation in this situation is not fair.

This is pointless, things like this should be kept secret, backstabbing is a legitimate strategy, and I think this even though I mainly just never ally in game.

Also, this would easily be abusable in a 3 player game, 1 allies another waits for a long time mashing end turn, other player leaves
+ rating.

Should have the option to limit the number of alliances, would be more useful than this arbitrary classification (such as rep)

An example (based on actual events): Once, one of my "allies" was stealing my empty cities to help my enemy who was his ally, then, to he stop parasitizing my cities I had to declare war, but the real traitor was the other player!
If you broke an alliance don't necessarily mean that you're the backstabber

conclusion: limit number of alliances is the way

Brb changing my name to Pirate, my coalition to the Pirates, so I can have pirates everywhere.

Also in my avatar, can't forget that.


Anyways I personally wouldn't mind this, however, -10 for just betraying one person is a bit much, maybe like -2. And this is too easily abused. This would also encourage allyfagging (allying like 11 people in a world game lol). I agree with Reckoner, but overall I oppose the suggestion in this thread.

While it would be nice to limit amount of alliances you can have, it's not really fair, and bringing it in for a system that can easily be abused would be pointless.

@Fumbduck & Reckoner: Getting a status 'reliable' does not mean directly that this is something good or bad. I think there are some people that like to get the status 'Pirate'. And its just a status, so i don't see a real problem in having it abused (just like the current Rep system). Its just that you can get another 'goal' in this game, witch make people play it more (like b0nker2 said). And i agree with Reckoner in making a 'max alliance'. This should be a game option imo, but this is a other suggestion and does not have much to do with this one (both could be implemented).

@Desu: The scoring system was a example, it can be changed.

I like this idea.my status will be pirate

Obviously this would make me want to backstab as I would covet that Pirate rating.

I will be a Pirate

I remember when I betrayed someone when they allied all my enemies and took my cities.
I don't think strategos will ever stop dogging me for it.

I support this ere' idear'

Doesn't this promote spamming alliances way too much? If you only ally 1 person a game like me, you would only get +1 points, but if you allied 5 you would get +5. Usually I'll ally someone near me if I am in a bad situation, however this is just so it takes 2 turns to attack me rather than 1. Really your diplomatic skills should make it so someone doesn't backstab, and you can easily scout out who is going to backstab, when they are setting up for it It's pretty obvious.

therefore, I disagree with the idea

p.s I would totally backstab just to get the pirate status