No diplomacy

[edsdad]

Any way of playing with diplomacy not set to default.I think it should be a choice in game settings.

I find to many single games are turning into team games because of it.

 

[codanostra]

i'm a little confused... are you suggesting there be an option for no diplomacy at all?

 

[zspBANNED]

I think he might be asking/suggesting that the option to use diplomacy be any option upon making the game? If so, I like this idea

 

[ORBOTRON]

I like the idea of that being an option for sure.

 

[edsdad]

Sorry for being vague guys,that's what I meant

Thanks a bunch.

 

[Badorties]

Here's the problem, and it's similar to anything that get's 'outlawed' after it's been legal.

You set up a no diplomacy game because you don't really like diplomacy. Well now that players can't make official diplomatic communications and requests, its driven underground, in notes and instant messages. So now you still have diplomacy, it's just that the aboard board players are getting cheated.

just like banning alcohol in the 20's. Enter the folks that do it anyways and make a killing.

About games turning into team games. This often happens when there is no diplomatic chatter going on at all. At certain levels, its just about instinct, "we need to team up to survive." But in the greater scheme of things, it's war, and it's not very often won with only a big stick.

ya falla?

 

[Incandenza]

A workaround here could be, the next time you start a game, write something like "No diplomacy please" in the descriptive text, which should naturally draw other people that aren't wild about diplomacy.

 

[Badorties]

A workaround here could be, the next time you start a game, write something like "No diplomacy please" in the descriptive text, which should naturally draw other people that aren't wild about diplomacy.

yes i was going to suggest something like this. I imagine once we have many members, common tags will emerge, like no-diplo, chatty, german, etc. So people can search for and join those games.

 

[AAFitz]

That actually isnt necessarily the case. You can very much set up a game, especially with good players without a diplomacy option and very often, and I would suggest more often than not, that they will honor it.

The game with outright diplomacy and no diplomacy truly are two completely different options for playing the game. Cheating and circumventing the rules and killing other people will happen occasionally no matter what. If players go in and have secret diplomacy, which they can do even in the games with the diplomatic option, than there's nothing that can be done, except spotting examples of it. Its all part of the game, but not considering the option, only because people will cheat lets the cheaters wins and in effect, cheats the honest players that just want a different option.

What the diplomatic chat function does is encourage diplomacy, to a point that it actually fundamentally changes the game. I myself can play it either way, but in general think actual diplomacy is not very fun and allows just as much cheating, because if two friends are in a game together, they now can actually steer the game easier than without it.

There really are a lot of people who play this game that dont like alliances of any kind, and If I had to guess its somewhere around 25%-as much as 40% of total players. That's an awful lot to alienate.

It seems like an easy option to implement to offer an option for a massive number of players.

 

[Chilly]

My personal thoughts are that I would rather have a "No-diplo" tag and let it be on people's honor if they are joining a game.

Observation:
Any time you see that two people are "sending each other messages" it certainly gets you nervous and thinking that you are on the outside looking in. This is a good thing I think because it then (should) force you to step up that aspect of your game.

Also, I've noticed far less "formal" diplomatic treaties because I think that people would rather those actually be kept secret. The short evolution that I have seen is that people just send a few messages back and forth and have an "informal" treaty because they feel having a "formal" one puts too big a target on their back. While the population here is small and people get to know each other, I can see this trend continuing. Probably as the user base expands, more "formal" treaties will be used.

Suggestion:
Given that it doesn't take too much creativity to break a treaty (without actually breaking it), I'd like to see a diplomatic option where you declare yourself completely peaceful to another player for set period of time. There is also a small question of when treaties expire and who gets the first move after they have expired. Perhaps instead of a treaty being good for X number of rounds, they should be specified as to when they end (for example 6.3, in round six after the third player has completed their turn.)

Sorry for the somewhat stream of consciousness post.

 

[Spazm]

I think at a certain point there can be too many game options for the average user. This is one of them, IMO. If anything, there should be a "Basic" tab, which is for the most part the settings that are there now, and then an "Advanced" tab which would be things like No Diplo, No Dice (Simple Subtraction), etc.

 

[coolname]

I agree with Chilly's Observation. Informal treaties have the additional benefit that if you accidentally break them, it won't show up on your permanent record (i.e. your Diplomacy score, which takes 30 days purge).

I don't know why formal treaties should increase with more players. Perhaps because newer players want to try it out or don't realize their treaties are made public? (I know I didn't know that at first)

 

[AAFitz]

My personal thoughts are that I would rather have a "No-diplo" tag and let it be on people's honor if they are joining a game.

Observation:
Any time you see that two people are "sending each other messages" it certainly gets you nervous and thinking that you are on the outside looking in. This is a good thing I think because it then (should) force you to step up that aspect of your game.

Also, I've noticed far less "formal" diplomatic treaties because I think that people would rather those actually be kept secret. The short evolution that I have seen is that people just send a few messages back and forth and have an "informal" treaty because they feel having a "formal" one puts too big a target on their back. While the population here is small and people get to know each other, I can see this trend continuing. Probably as the user base expands, more "formal" treaties will be used.

Suggestion:
Given that it doesn't take too much creativity to break a treaty (without actually breaking it), I'd like to see a diplomatic option where you declare yourself completely peaceful to another player for set period of time. There is also a small question of when treaties expire and who gets the first move after they have expired. Perhaps instead of a treaty being good for X number of rounds, they should be specified as to when they end (for example 6.3, in round six after the third player has completed their turn.)

Sorry for the somewhat stream of consciousness post.

Dont be sorry, its a good post, and it highlights the issues and only briefly at that. The game is psychological warfare, and while some dont enjoy...(dont get)... the subtleties of diplomacy without words, ie the essential game itself, many do and it is that psychological warfare, based on small moves, intentional misdirects and trust, even misplaced trust that makes the game really fun, again, for some. By having the formal diplomacy option in a game, it practically necessitates it, and thereby changes the game.

I may have accepted one of these to date, but even that was such an obvious need that I never saw the point in it in the first place. In any case, it certainly is worth keeping open as an option. As far as too many options as someone said, certainly theres some truth to that at some point, but more options is more fun. Theres many different ways to play this game, and MC has opened up some of those already, which can 100% account for me being interested in it after 10000 games elsewhere. Hell, I dont even want to play, I simply cant ignore the variety.

Thanks again Robin.

 

[Army]

Would work with the Anonymous option. All players anonymous + diplomacy settings disabled so only public chat can be used.