ParanoidAltoid
Spectator
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2012
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4
When this game was first made, I had a vision. Creating alliances with other players is very powerful. A team of 3 could take out 21 lone wolves, one by one. You should expect alliances to be common, and they are.
But there is a problem with alliances. At first, an ally is more valuable to you alive than dead, and relations are peaceful. But as the cannon fires, the duration that you can expect to enjoy the benefits of mutual cooperation dwindles. When only a handful of opponents remain, the benefit you gain from sharing resources is small, as your ally will have little time to pay you back. If an ally is weak near the beginning of the game, you will be better off making him stronger. But near the game's conclusion, an ally weak from battle becomes easy prey. Better to kill him while he is already near death than in the final deathmatch when he is strong.
The temptation to betray is magnified by the fear of being betrayed. If the apparent optimal time to betray an ally is with about 4 opponents remaining, then you will actually want to turn on your ally slightly before this, lest he turn on you first. Tensions rise gradually each time the cannon fires, finally exploding when one player flees from battle leaving his ally to die, or drives a sword in his back. The plots that could unfold would be endless, as groups shatter under the tension.
But sadly, there is an easy solution to this trust problem: play with the same people game after game. Then, an ally has incentive to not betray you, as otherwise you could refuse to play with him next game. Teams form, who operate in comfort until no opponents remain, at which point they stage a friendly battle amongst themselves.
So my vision is not realized. It is not the most cunning who survive, but those who choose to play with the same people game after game. The most Machiavellian player loses to the player with the fastest internet connection. Rather than devise plots, players devise paths that reach the most chests. If only people saw my vision of what the game could have been, rather than merely seeing whatever would help them win the most games (inter-game cooperation.)
But this community is far too well-established to change, so we are likely to be stuck with things as they are. I don't see how it could change; the "Clans and Teams" section has almost 35K posts for chist's sake. So I guess this post is just me bitching. Thanks for reading.
Tl;dr: This game could have centered on plotting and betrayal; making it unique and interesting. But it doesn't, because players build trust by playing with the same allies game after game.
EDIT: Playing with the same people and making friends is fine, the problem arises when you use that friendship to enjoy the benefits of inter-game cooperation. Playing with friends would be fine if people did so with the understanding that back-stabbing and plotting are part of the game.
But there is a problem with alliances. At first, an ally is more valuable to you alive than dead, and relations are peaceful. But as the cannon fires, the duration that you can expect to enjoy the benefits of mutual cooperation dwindles. When only a handful of opponents remain, the benefit you gain from sharing resources is small, as your ally will have little time to pay you back. If an ally is weak near the beginning of the game, you will be better off making him stronger. But near the game's conclusion, an ally weak from battle becomes easy prey. Better to kill him while he is already near death than in the final deathmatch when he is strong.
The temptation to betray is magnified by the fear of being betrayed. If the apparent optimal time to betray an ally is with about 4 opponents remaining, then you will actually want to turn on your ally slightly before this, lest he turn on you first. Tensions rise gradually each time the cannon fires, finally exploding when one player flees from battle leaving his ally to die, or drives a sword in his back. The plots that could unfold would be endless, as groups shatter under the tension.
But sadly, there is an easy solution to this trust problem: play with the same people game after game. Then, an ally has incentive to not betray you, as otherwise you could refuse to play with him next game. Teams form, who operate in comfort until no opponents remain, at which point they stage a friendly battle amongst themselves.
So my vision is not realized. It is not the most cunning who survive, but those who choose to play with the same people game after game. The most Machiavellian player loses to the player with the fastest internet connection. Rather than devise plots, players devise paths that reach the most chests. If only people saw my vision of what the game could have been, rather than merely seeing whatever would help them win the most games (inter-game cooperation.)
But this community is far too well-established to change, so we are likely to be stuck with things as they are. I don't see how it could change; the "Clans and Teams" section has almost 35K posts for chist's sake. So I guess this post is just me bitching. Thanks for reading.
Tl;dr: This game could have centered on plotting and betrayal; making it unique and interesting. But it doesn't, because players build trust by playing with the same allies game after game.
EDIT: Playing with the same people and making friends is fine, the problem arises when you use that friendship to enjoy the benefits of inter-game cooperation. Playing with friends would be fine if people did so with the understanding that back-stabbing and plotting are part of the game.
I like it. Been a while since I've seen a post like this on the forums. Simply talking about the games, not centered on an issue or a rant, or a top 10 list. Miss when people used to make posts like this 
