People are going to mass ally no matter what, I played a game today as Renly where Stark, Stannis, Tully, Arryn, and Lannister all allied to fight Martell and I after we took most of the Reach, all of the Riverlands south of the trident, and the Crownlands. Then after they lost the rest of the Riverlands and the Westerlands, Stark killed his defenses, and let the others come down. The biggest deterrent mass alliances is your own concious and playing style. Do you want to play to win, play for fun, or play so your enemies don't win? Most players want to win, and if they can't they want make their enemies lose. I've played games before where I stay in a game after giving up hope of winning just to help my ally or just to make certain some players don't win. Mass alliances are part of the game, and it is up to the plyers if they want to mass ally and stay allied afterwords, or betray one another. I've played games before where I've been bsed, where I've bsed, where I let others through, and where I've had someone let others through to fight me. Most players probably have, most players have probably been part of a mass alliance. So what if most people enjoy winning, or enjoy ruining the game for others? It is a game, there is no need for the forums to get so heated, and the WCs are fine as they are. WC won't stop mass alliances, they haven't, and honestly who cares? Most of the players who need mass alliances to win are not very good. Can anyone honestly say they've never had more than two allies in every game of song they've played?
Do you really think the entire map allying against Wilds or Others isn't a mass alliance either? Because it is.
And ULose, let JT decided where he draws the line at Lore and gameplay, it is his game. At this point you are basically flaming.
Also JT, what bugs are you aware of and working on fixing?
Edited by Skoton on 7/29/2012 1:17 AM PDT