Should game settings only be changed when 100% players agree?

The current system accounts for the alliances when calculating the majority, but alliances can always be temporarily broken. Some players suggest that game settings should only be changed by a unanimous vote, otherwise this feature will always get exploited. What do you think?

As an Option please.

Game host should have the option of setting: (a) Game settings cannot be changed or (b) game settings can be changed.
If game settings are changeable, then settings (max alliances and turn time) should only be changed if at least 2/3 of the players agree on the proposed changes (similar to constitutional changes, that in most countries require a 2/3 vote in parliament).

Yes. This or what CD said.
I would add that the host would need to approve.

An option to lock some/all game settings would also be great!

So happy this is finally being discussed. Ultimately I believe it has to be everyone in agreement. If it were like my game today it would still be changed if we allow 2/3 because it was me alone vs 4. A very simple procedure-unanimous ; no complications. If it is a genuine case where something is needed and all agree then fine. I had the most frustrating experience today :

http://atwar-game.com/forum/post.php?topic_id=11934&action=reply"ed_user_id=336867&message_id=128670&topic_page=1

It was infuriating! I think a lot of the ppl who like to exploit these changes are going to come and vote against it!Just like they do in game due to their majority. This is a wonderful strategy game and it should be skill and proper logic rewarded not a bunch of friends taking advantage of such obvious loopholes.

If we go with CD's suggestion of at least having the options a &b this might be possible but I certainly will not be joining any game where I see that it can be changed because it might just be a repeat of the experiences I have now and I think the game should encourage ppl to play and not be turned away due to simple things like these which can be avoided.Today I once again thought about premium and right after this game I retained my conviction:" Until this major loophole is fixed I enjoy the game as a "free user"

Game host should have the option of setting: (a) Game settings cannot be changed or (b) game settings can be changed.
If game settings are changeable, then settings (max alliances and turn time) should only be changed if at least 2/3 of the players agree on the proposed changes (similar to constitutional changes, that in most countries require a 2/3 vote in parliament).
----

my CHOICE IS (A)- because I play casual map and will drive sp farmer out of my game. PLus HAVing alliance put on zero and can't be change is great!
Let say there were 3 player me and anther two player.
those two were friend and ally each other. 2 vs 1 is not fair.

Unanimous. There are complaints about changed settings almost daily. The current system was implemented with best intentions but it does more bad than good sometimes.

Napsáno Goblin, 26.01.2014 at 11:56

Oh look 29 bastards who like to gang up and change settings on a person who was wining voted "No, the way it is now is OK"

Agreed. I vote to change it.

Napsáno Columna Durruti, 24.01.2014 at 08:42

Game host should have the option of setting: (a) Game settings cannot be changed or (b) game settings can be changed.
If game settings are changeable, then settings (max alliances and turn time) should only be changed if at least 2/3 of the players agree on the proposed changes (similar to constitutional changes, that in most countries require a 2/3 vote in parliament).

I like this idea

Napsáno Guest14502, 26.01.2014 at 12:56

Napsáno Goblin, 26.01.2014 at 11:56

Oh look 29 bastards who like to gang up and change settings on a person who was wining voted "No, the way it is now is OK"

Agreed. I vote to change it.

Ditto.

Napsáno Htin, 26.01.2014 at 06:53

Game host should have the option of setting: (a) Game settings cannot be changed or (b) game settings can be changed.
If game settings are changeable, then settings (max alliances and turn time) should only be changed if at least 2/3 of the players agree on the proposed changes (similar to constitutional changes, that in most countries require a 2/3 vote in parliament).
----

my CHOICE IS (A)- because I play casual map and will drive sp farmer out of my game. PLus HAVing alliance put on zero and can't be change is great!
Let say there were 3 player me and anther two player.
those two were friend and ally each other. 2 vs 1 is not fair.

In principle , my problem is not the 2v1. If two players wish to play in this way I believe it is their choice but what I do stand for is that if your game is set at 0 alliance they should not be able to change it. So each game the players know what to expect and the battle remains with the initial parameters!

I'd suggest a little padlock icon near almost every setting. The game host can set those, and the locked settings can only be altered by unanimous vote.

And mods would be able to lock settings in a running game when a lot of griefing is involved.

Napsáno Stomach Ulcers, 27.01.2014 at 06:40

I like the way it is now because it's a good way to spice up your game, i've been on both ends of either getting the rules changed in my favour and getting them changed to crush me, it's fun. Mixes it up a little and people just don't seem to like it. But no matter, most little features that I like about this game end up getting changed to better accommodate babies anyway, c'est la vie.

I actually agree with this. Some of my best AW memories involve world games with rounds of changing up the game settings (like making the join week 99 etc). It was interesting and usually pretty funny when people got butthurt. We shouldn't appease crybabies at the cost of making the game stale.

Changing turn times to 1 min when they were 3 or 4 playing 5 on 1 can't ever be called 'fun' its shocking that some of the older players think in any way shape or form that your 2 hours can be wasted by some ally fagging numb brains or trolls for the ability to 'spice up a game' or 'so its funny when people can get butthurt' 9/10 this is done by people who are clearly losing and is the only opportunity they have to attempt a win.

Anyway OT thoughts, it is very apparent what the solution to the problem is, it was suggested before this thread and again on it. Each setting should have its own tick-box before the game starts.

No, a new system is needed. Basically, some options changes should be locked from the start, such as maximum alliances and casual/quick game, just like game winning conditions.

AFK players can't vote

Napsáno Stomach Ulcers, 27.01.2014 at 15:58

I also want to remind you that NOBODY under rank 7 even looks at the proposal to change the settings, so if someone put settings incorrectly, 99.999% of the time you wouldn't get your game fixed ever.

I look.

Keep it the way it is. This is a social/multiplayer game. Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.
- Simple majority to effect a change means that high-rank/high-upgrade players will have to accommodate the masses in one way or another.
- Having a lock against what is permitted to change means that you have determined, as the game host, that changes to the current structure are more likely to harm you than hurt you. If you want no changes to the preset conditions, play 1v1 games. Also, having this lock might as well mean it is always on, if the game is hosted by a high-rank player.
- Clearly the 'simple majority' mechanism and the game properties which may be changed are a bulwark against the tyranny of the minority (generally speaking, high ranking players).
- The current system is very much like an SP tax on the highly skilled players. Either they choose to share some of their SP via alliances, or risk losing half of it to the unwashed masses.
- Without the current system, or something like it, what is the incentive of high-rank players to alli with low rank players?
---
I think looking at what the settings that may be changed and the mechanism for putting changes into force will speak for the intent of the current system, and why it is probably a good system. As a fundamental I assume that all players are acting in what they perceive as their best interests, which should be maximization of SP per minute of play, and/or maximization of number of wins/game played.

Under the current system, the settings may not be changed unless a "simple majority" (50% +1 of current players) agree. The net result of this should be that the minority of players are somehow disadvantaged by the changes to the settings, to the advantage of the majority. e.g. While 1 minute turns will hurt me when I move my 40 units, I calculate it will hurt Pinheiro more with his 1000 units to move around. Therefore, I vote for 1 minute turns.

The minority suffers. Sometimes it is an annoyance (turn duration), and sometimes the minority player might lose (permitting latejoins, increasing # of allies). This being the case, why would anyone choose to be in the minority?

Maximization of SP, obviously. When one wins with few or no allies, the amount of SP is much larger. Generally, this speaks to the skill and experience of the players in the minority, and to their rank and accumulated upgrades.

In a social game, clearly, anything that pleases the majority of players over the long terms should be the norm. What about the minority player? The lone gunman, who needs no allies (generally highly skilled with many upgrades and much experience) to win? In a zero-alli environment, they should win, every time. All other things being equal, in a zero-alli environment, the player with the greatest number of relevant upgrades will win.

Playability (greatest good for the greatest number) almost screams for maintaining the current system. It does not prevent the 'minority' from winning -- but it does dilute their SP earnings in one way (forcing high rank players to alli) or another (finding themselves robbed of SP by losing to mobs). If you as a player don't want to surrender some of your SP to the 'leeches' you are free to risk this.

Citovat:

Citovat:

Napsáno Goblin, 28.01.2014 at 09:10

I actually agree with this. Some of my best AW memories involve world games with rounds of changing up the game settings (like making the join week 99 etc). It was interesting and usually pretty funny when people got butthurt. We shouldn't appease crybabies at the cost of making the game stale.

Oh i have a little story about my last world game when i was rank 7... goes something like this:

(turn 30 - killed 5 players, have the strongest army in the game and 1 ally - game is curently 2v3)

ally chat: "ElBastardo": goblin could you send me money so i can kill china!
ally chat: Goblin: sure i have alot of money, sending you 10k
ally chat: "ElBastardo": thanks man

(turn 31)

Goblin: umm dude why you broken alliance with me? :/
ElBastardo: que?
Goblin: Uh ...i sent you money, why did you break alliance?
ElBastardo: no habla english
Goblin: you spoke english in ally chat all the time wtf?
ElBastardo: que? fuck off
pm/ China: goblin lets ally, that dude is an asshole ...can you send me money
pm/ Goblin: i just sent him half my cash ...you gona trick me like he did...
pm/ China: hahah you fucking cunt we gona fuck you up bitch!!!
Goblin: guys i have more money and troops then you all together...

(turn 32 - they switch turn time to 1 minute)

Goblin: awwh come on ...why you do that?
Allyfag2: lol
Chinafag: cunt!
ElBastardo: que bitch? lolol
Allyfag:
.
(turn 35 - they realized i will kill them even faster in 1 minute so they switched to 12 minutes)

Goblin: wtf 12 minutes? ...dudes come on i need to go to work. Why are you doin this ...lets atleast allyend ok?
Allyfag: lol you butthurt goblin?
ElBastardo: hahah fuck you little bitch!!
Chinafag: BUTTHURT LITTLE BABY!!!
Goblin: o.O
Allyfag: you mad bro?
Allyfag: you mad little pussy?
Elbastardo: lol
Chinafag: lol
Allyfag2: LOL


...does this seem normal to you guys? ...it doesnt to me ...never played world game after that.

El general is a big noob, i have him enemy listed since rank 6, and i have beat him before , even when 2 vs 1

Lol Nice story goblin. There are lot of fags out there. And I swear if the second or third choice gets to the top, I will make alts and vote farm till death.

Napsáno zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.

I completely disagree with your point of view.

First of all, as of now it is against the rules to change the game setting to gain an unfair advantage or just to piss of the winning player.

Imagine a game of football: Youre ahead 3 to 1 and the game is about to end in 10 minutes. But no wait, the other team is able to influence the referee! The ref now decides your opponent may bring on 5 more players and the game gets prolonged for 30 minutes. Additionally you receive a yellow card every time you try to hold the ball. If it was like that, do you honestly think anybody would ever want to play a game of football again? I doubt it, because it clearly is cheating and it sucks! Winning is supposed to be fun but if all the option to end the game are either cheat, draw or straight up lose there will be nothing left to motivate.

Also changing game settings is not negotiation, it is black mailing.

/Edit: The football anology was not meant to describe the AW game play concept but the situation you find yourself in when the game settings are getting changed: You are either on the side that prefers to change the settings or to keep the current settings. But no matter what side you are on, if you are in the minority you will get an extra handicap completely ignoring the progress you have worked for in the ongoing game.

When you are alone vs 3-4 players and they change the time to 1 minute, if a mod is not online to act quickly you're fucked

"First of all..."
I have recently reviewed http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=1843 which I assume are 'the rules'.
- I see no mention of game setting changes.
- The root of my argument, of course, is that the game settings are the best example of direct democracy, in-game, and (of course) acts as an SP 'tax' to (generally) higher-rank players.
- If there is a recent change and the Great Unwashed (like me) are not made aware, or consulted, this further reinforces my point that the Oppressive Minority are not interested in the best gameplay experience for 'everyone' -- which in the end will hamper the growth of this wonderful game and leave high-ranking players bashing against each other.
- I can understand why you would disagree, as you're a member of the 'oppressive minority'. EVEN IF someday I possess the upgrades/skill/strategies/experience etc. best playability for the greatest number will always be my goal.

"Imagine a game of football:"
There are more than two 'agents' (teams) involved in the Game Settings changes, so the analogy doesn't even make it past the 'essentialist' threshold of an analogy, and there is no negotiation during a football game. Even if changes to the game settings are now breaking the rules, how does one arbitrate which changes are 'unfair'? By definition, the game settings apply to everyone, yes?
If you demand a line-by-line deconstruction of the footie analogy and how it has no relevance to the subject at hand, I will comply.

"Also changing game settings is not negotiation, it is black mailing."
- It is the exact opposite of blackmail, and the epitome of negotiation. Blackmail is illegal. Settings Changes are legal. Also, blackmail is zero sum (no one gains unless someone loses). In AW, the OP player (should) calculate the SP they would lose against their probability of a win, and decide whether to negotiate or not. At time 'T' is when the offer is made/not made and accepted/denied ...
-- If Mob Offers and OP Accepts, its neutral-neutral. No one gains anything, except 'loss avoidance benefit' (arguably lose-lose, win-win, win/lose-win/lose etc. but the OUTCOME is the same for each party) since the outcome otherwise will never be known.
-- If Mob Offers and OP Denies, and Mob Wins, its Neutral-Lose. Mob Wins, OP loses. Mob was going to win, and OP loses the realized loss avoidance benefit.
-- If Mob Offers and OP Denies, and OP Wins, its Neutral-Neutral. The Mob was going to lose, and the OP was going to win, anyhow.
-- If Mob does NOT Offer and OP wins OR loses, its neutral-neutral. The outcome was what it always was going to be, anyways.

So, in this ^ Prisoner's Dilemma re-imagined with SP as the valuation, there is a strong bias towards a negotiated end of some kind.

- Changes to the game settings will not guarantee a win for any of those involved.
- Even if the mob wins, they gain very little SP, each, anyway. A victory of this type should be everyone's last resort.
- This is a social game, not a single player or 1v1 game (generally). Without game setting changes there is scant possibility of addressing playability for lower rank/skilled/upgraded/experienced players.

If you want to ameliorate the mob factor, restrict games to your rank and above. But the SP is so so easy otherwise ....
---
All this being said, I observe there is waaay too much hugging (and consequent backstabbing). That hurts the gamer in me, but the world, warfare and politics is nothing but reputation, relationships, and (frequently) betrayal. All of this assumes that parties are making rational calculations of SP, probability of win, risk of loss and avg. SP earned/hour of play. I am not confident enough players think through these factors ....

Napsáno VRIL, 28.01.2014 at 16:47

Napsáno zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.

I completely disagree with your point of view.

First of all, as of now it is against the rules to change the game setting to gain an unfair advantage or just to piss of the winning player.

Imagine a game of football: Youre ahead 3 to 1 and the game is about to end in 10 minutes. But no wait, the other team is able to influence the referee! The ref now decides your opponent may bring on 5 more players and the game gets prolonged for 30 minutes. Additionally you receive a yellow card every time you try to hold the ball. If it was like that, do you honestly think anybody would ever want to play a game of football again? I doubt it, because it clearly is cheating and it sucks! Winning is supposed to be fun but if all the option to end the game are either cheat, draw or straight up lose there will be nothing left to motivate.

Also changing game settings is not negotiation, it is black mailing.

Napsáno zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 06:59

SP tax for high ranks

Lel, this is the reason i refuse to ally low ranks, because they change time.
Bring it on biatch, once i get hold of europe its over for you and your team, i had never lose a single game in which i take hold of europe in a world map, it always ends up with me holding africa,america and asia up to turn 50 and win by most sp.

It might be done by saying that premium users have the option to close the option of vote.
that brings more people to get premium.
but it might as well be done premium and non-premium.
people shouldn't get the option to propose changes in the first 1% turn.
that keeps people from joining games that they absolutely dont like the settings from.

-BitDL

Napsáno b0nker2, 27.01.2014 at 11:58

Changing turn times to 1 min when they were 3 or 4 playing 5 on 1 can't ever be called 'fun' its shocking that some of the older players think in any way shape or form that your 2 hours can be wasted by some ally fagging numb brains or trolls for the ability to 'spice up a game' or 'so its funny when people can get butthurt' 9/10 this is done by people who are clearly losing and is the only opportunity they have to attempt a win.

Anyway OT thoughts, it is very apparent what the solution to the problem is, it was suggested before this thread and again on it. Each setting should have its own tick-box before the game starts.

Could not agree more with your sir regarding the 'fun' remarks. I have also heard the other solution mentioned before as well. The tick boxes;this also seems viable.As someone suggested; the ticked or unticked selection can either never change or changes by unanimous decision. I am still more a fan of unanimous though since it shows agreement by all. Especially in a case where something genuinely happens and all parties concerned agree that a change might be necessary. Either way works for me though, no change or unanimous decision.

Citovat:

Citovat:

Napsáno Goblin, 28.01.2014 at 09:10

I actually agree with this. Some of my best AW memories involve world games with rounds of changing up the game settings (like making the join week 99 etc). It was interesting and usually pretty funny when people got butthurt. We shouldn't appease crybabies at the cost of making the game stale.

Oh i have a little story about my last world game when i was rank 7... goes something like this:

(turn 30 - killed 5 players, have the strongest army in the game and 1 ally - game is curently 2v3)

ally chat: "ElBastardo": goblin could you send me money so i can kill china!
ally chat: Goblin: sure i have alot of money, sending you 10k
ally chat: "ElBastardo": thanks man

(turn 31)

Goblin: umm dude why you broken alliance with me? :/
ElBastardo: que?
Goblin: Uh ...i sent you money, why did you break alliance?
ElBastardo: no habla english
Goblin: you spoke english in ally chat all the time wtf?
ElBastardo: que? fuck off
pm/ China: goblin lets ally, that dude is an asshole ...can you send me money
pm/ Goblin: i just sent him half my cash ...you gona trick me like he did...
pm/ China: hahah you fucking cunt we gona fuck you up bitch!!!
Goblin: guys i have more money and troops then you all together...

(turn 32 - they switch turn time to 1 minute)

Goblin: awwh come on ...why you do that?
Allyfag2: lol
Chinafag: cunt!
ElBastardo: que bitch? lolol
Allyfag:
.
(turn 35 - they realized i will kill them even faster in 1 minute so they switched to 12 minutes)

Goblin: wtf 12 minutes? ...dudes come on i need to go to work. Why are you doin this ...lets atleast allyend ok?
Allyfag: lol you butthurt goblin?
ElBastardo: hahah fuck you little bitch!!
Chinafag: BUTTHURT LITTLE BABY!!!
Goblin: o.O
Allyfag: you mad bro?
Allyfag: you mad little pussy?
Elbastardo: lol
Chinafag: lol
Allyfag2: LOL


...does this seem normal to you guys? ...it doesnt to me ...never played world game after that.

Maybe we are twins, had so many of these bad experiences. I remember one time they changed the setting to 12 minutes turns indeed and said we have all night ! , I just stopped playing atwar.. only just came back.

Napsáno zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Keep it the way it is. This is a social/multiplayer game. Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.
- Simple majority to effect a change means that high-rank/high-upgrade players will have to accommodate the masses in one way or another.
- Having a lock against what is permitted to change means that you have determined, as the game host, that changes to the current structure are more likely to harm you than hurt you. If you want no changes to the preset conditions, play 1v1 games. Also, having this lock might as well mean it is always on, if the game is hosted by a high-rank player.
- Clearly the 'simple majority' mechanism and the game properties which may be changed are a bulwark against the tyranny of the minority (generally speaking, high ranking players).
- The current system is very much like an SP tax on the highly skilled players. Either they choose to share some of their SP via alliances, or risk losing half of it to the unwashed masses.
- Without the current system, or something like it, what is the incentive of high-rank players to alli with low rank players?
---
I think looking at what the settings that may be changed and the mechanism for putting changes into force will speak for the intent of the current system, and why it is probably a good system. As a fundamental I assume that all players are acting in what they perceive as their best interests, which should be maximization of SP per minute of play, and/or maximization of number of wins/game played.

Under the current system, the settings may not be changed unless a "simple majority" (50% +1 of current players) agree. The net result of this should be that the minority of players are somehow disadvantaged by the changes to the settings, to the advantage of the majority. e.g. While 1 minute turns will hurt me when I move my 40 units, I calculate it will hurt Pinheiro more with his 1000 units to move around. Therefore, I vote for 1 minute turns.

The minority suffers. Sometimes it is an annoyance (turn duration), and sometimes the minority player might lose (permitting latejoins, increasing # of allies). This being the case, why would anyone choose to be in the minority?

Maximization of SP, obviously. When one wins with few or no allies, the amount of SP is much larger. Generally, this speaks to the skill and experience of the players in the minority, and to their rank and accumulated upgrades.

In a social game, clearly, anything that pleases the majority of players over the long terms should be the norm. What about the minority player? The lone gunman, who needs no allies (generally highly skilled with many upgrades and much experience) to win? In a zero-alli environment, they should win, every time. All other things being equal, in a zero-alli environment, the player with the greatest number of relevant upgrades will win.

Playability (greatest good for the greatest number) almost screams for maintaining the current system. It does not prevent the 'minority' from winning -- but it does dilute their SP earnings in one way (forcing high rank players to alli) or another (finding themselves robbed of SP by losing to mobs). If you as a player don't want to surrender some of your SP to the 'leeches' you are free to risk this.

The logical construction of this is so poor. I just glanced at it but it is so long I will actually need time if I really wanted to respond in full!

I just have a sneaky feeling that this is one of the players who does not bother to learn the game and become better but just abuses the game change option. Learn to play and stop speaking of minority ....

Napsáno VRIL, 28.01.2014 at 16:47

Napsáno zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.

I completely disagree with your point of view.

First of all, as of now it is against the rules to change the game setting to gain an unfair advantage or just to piss of the winning player.

Imagine a game of football: Youre ahead 3 to 1 and the game is about to end in 10 minutes. But no wait, the other team is able to influence the referee! The ref now decides your opponent may bring on 5 more players and the game gets prolonged for 30 minutes. Additionally you receive a yellow card every time you try to hold the ball. If it was like that, do you honestly think anybody would ever want to play a game of football again? I doubt it, because it clearly is cheating and it sucks! Winning is supposed to be fun but if all the option to end the game are either cheat, draw or straight up lose there will be nothing left to motivate.

Also changing game settings is not negotiation, it is black mailing.

I have never ever been so active on any other topic but this is vital to my game survival! Since if this does not change I will prob quit again for good . I wish there was a love button for that your post! I often use the football analogy especially since it is one of the more popular sports. Great post !

Napsáno Silent One_deleted, 29.01.2014 at 12:39

Napsáno VRIL, 28.01.2014 at 16:47

Napsáno zombieyeti, 28.01.2014 at 07:35

Anything that encourages people to negotiate is a good thing.

I completely disagree with your point of view.

First of all, as of now it is against the rules to change the game setting to gain an unfair advantage or just to piss of the winning player.

Imagine a game of football: Youre ahead 3 to 1 and the game is about to end in 10 minutes. But no wait, the other team is able to influence the referee! The ref now decides your opponent may bring on 5 more players and the game gets prolonged for 30 minutes. Additionally you receive a yellow card every time you try to hold the ball. If it was like that, do you honestly think anybody would ever want to play a game of football again? I doubt it, because it clearly is cheating and it sucks! Winning is supposed to be fun but if all the option to end the game are either cheat, draw or straight up lose there will be nothing left to motivate.

Also changing game settings is not negotiation, it is black mailing.

I have never ever been so active on any other topic but this is vital to my game survival! Since if this does not change I will prob quit again for good . I wish there was a love button for that your post! I often use the football analogy especially since it is one of the more popular sports. Great post !

I wanted to do the same.