by Dulkal
Mr Suplex wrote:
We have also thought of removing the shared victory component and making only certain parts of a player's VP count be shared, while others remain with the single player. The idea has merit, but we haven't been able to sort it out yet as to what is fair to share and not share. The main benefit we hope to get from this is to make people less likely to form an alliance with the strongest player, since they can't piggyback on his success so directly.
I am not sure I understand. So the weakest player in the alliance loses anyway, and the strongest player loses points? Why, then, would they consider the alliance in the first place, if both players are guaranteed to be worse off?
Lastly, we looked at making the lowest single player score in the alliance the team's score, although I'm not sure this will really stop the "2 strongest players allying" problem.
On the contrary. This will make the "2 strongest player allying" the only time an alliance is a viable move.