- Joined
- Mar 14, 2018
- Messages
- 11
Well but if it is a flaw that may be corrected, why not? Besides, if treaties last for actual rounds, it enriches the game as you must pay attention to the moment in the round you sign the deal.
1 - NEW PLAYERS - Players who created an account on or after Oct 15 2023 are not able to log into the forum
2 - AWOL - We do not have an AWOL button under the ACTIVE tab yet. Please check each game to see if you are AWOL.
3 - STUCK GAMES - Some games will not load properly. If you encounter this, please post stuck games
HERE
Thanks.
I like what Tape says. I might have missed it, but one thing that's grey to me. I don't do this, but it isn't against the rules, but when I send two or three diplo's to the same player over the same tert. and they agree to part, I like all or none as an option if possible.
As for eliminating the diplo messages in no diplo games, i don't understand the proposal, those messages are not for mandatory deals but for other negotiations ("if you leave france i will leave brazil" and so on). And anyway, players could still communicate through private messages, right?
Another important failure of the present system is that treaties last for official rounds, giving an unfair advantage to the players who play first. Treaties should start and finish in the moment of the round they are signed.
I consider communicating outside the game through private messages to be unethical.
I very much agree with this. One player and I got so into it over it that he went of on me in the chatter. To the point he doesn't play here anymore. I believe it's even in the wikiPlayers would have to do that in public chat within the game. I think the alternative would lead to a lot of ugliness.
I consider communicating outside the game through private messages to be unethical.
Actually, one of the three thumb-rules for cheating on MC are:
"Communicating strategy or agreements with other players using any means other than the in-game chat or diplomatic message tab." (see WIKI)
I agree with much of what has been said here, but my idea would be to have a strong default, which is the way it is currently, meaning that in order to create a game with one of the other two options would neccessitate some extra clicks. Moreover, creatign games with the other two options could be limited to paying members.
I think that people lose perspective that at the end of the day it is a game. It is suppose to be about fun, and learning new strategy and growing. What is the point of cheating in a game, that the most you can hope for is a higher rank in the game, or a few medals. I love the variety that the different options of the game gives for a player; Maps and settings keeps it fresh and interesting, and of course you just never know when the dice monster is going to get in the way LOL.
I digress, if you have to cheat playing a game here then you have your priorities screwed up.
To further "muddy the waters" here, I've had the following situation happen to me more than once and I know I am not the only one because I've seen it talked about on the forums:
I go to attack a territory that I've previously had a treaty with, the treaty is over/expired, and the system tells me "I am breaking a treaty, do I wish to continue?"
There is a good reason for leaving breakable diplos. First, a 3rd party can use that diplo against a country the invade by leaving a single troop that a neighboring ally cannot break through. Second, and ally may choose to let someone pass through. If there are unbreakable diplos, then I propose to add a way for a diplo to be formally cancelled.
There is a good reason for leaving breakable diplos. First, a 3rd party can use that diplo against a country the invade by leaving a single troop that a neighboring ally cannot break through. Second, and ally may choose to let someone pass through. If there are unbreakable diplos, then I propose to add a way for a diplo to be formally cancelled.