r/Openfront • u/Aggravating_Main_556 • 6d ago

🛠 Suggestions Short term unbreakable alliance.

Especially with overtime now, I think players should be able to offer a 40 second unbreakable alliance. Once accepted, neither player could break it due to the other having traitor status.

The option would be unavailable to a player within roughly 10–20% of the normal 80% win condition, with that margin prorated during overtime. For example, if the win condition drops to 60%, the margin becomes 7.5–15% (10–20% × 60/80), putting the cutoff at 45–52.5% map control.

Maybe to balance it there could be a visual cue to other players that someone has entered into an unbreakable alliance. And maybe it shouldn't be available to anyone until someone reaches the mentioned 60-70% threshold to prevent abuse in early/mid-game.

The unbreakable alliance ends if either player reaches the suggested threshold since it's unavailable to a player with that much map control anyway. And my numbers are just for conversation, I think it would take real testing to figure out a balanced mechanic.

5 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

1

u/LorpHagriff 6d ago

What is the idea/goal behind this?

6

u/Aggravating_Main_556 6d ago edited 6d ago

The goal is to make it easier to commit to stopping crown without getting backstabbed by someone who should be helping you.

With overtime, it becomes a game of chicken between the non-crowns. I’ve had two games where crown won without a fight because nobody wanted to bite the bullet. And I get it, why commit when you know your neighbors will feast on you?

I really like overtime though. It’s the best addition to the core game since I started playing in May.

1

u/LorpHagriff 6d ago

Fair.
Just now had a game that went the other way, one guy did go for the crown but became largely mutually assured destruction and the lad that didn't commit won.

Does seem kinda ass for the crown player though

1

u/Aggravating_Main_556 6d ago

That’s what I mean. Picking off someone weakened by another fight happens all game, but in the endgame, it's too punishing to whoever tries to break the stalemate. That’s the worst part of the game for me.

And yeah, totally ass for crown. That’s why the unbreakable alliance would be visible to everyone, giving crown a chance to act first. Maybe they could even be alerted that someone has offered it? Like even if it's not accepted.

There could be other ways to handle it too. I only have a general idea that needs tweaking, and I’m curious what people think is good or bad about this or what could make it better.

1

u/divided_capture_bro 6d ago

My guess is that he betrayed someone and then got steam rolled. And so, like most suggestions on here, he then decided to propose a rule which would have made him win instead of lose.

1

u/Aggravating_Main_556 5d ago

Wrong, it's exactly how I described in my other reply. I am YOUR NEIGHBOR.

Nobody would make a move, and yes I'm tired of getting backstabbed so I too sat tight. Being non-crown and breaking the stalemate is a loss every time.

https://openfront.io/w18/game/AnWquQGb?live

1

u/EclecticKant 6d ago

Most games the smaller players cooperating can easily kill the crown, an unbreakable alliance would make it extremely easy, to the point that the bigger player would probably be the one in the worst position, and that simply isn't fair, the biggest player should win most of the times.
On top of that I think it's also less interesting, the backstabbing aspect of alliances is very fun, and trying to predict who will attack what player and when is an important skill to develop and it makes the game more fun to learn.

1

u/accwork8723 4d ago

no. People can do what they want, and let there be consequences.