Disable Game Chat: No Diplomacy or Fog Reveals

[Criticalwinner]

• basically it's a "turn off diplomacy" button
• sometimes you get tired of hearing noobs complain that they're under attack

If you implemented this, you would take away a part of the game that is necessary to some people. Just don't look at chat if your complaining about noobs. No one forces you to read the chat.

[clowncar]

Some people like to play the game straight up with no alliances or truces ( pure RISK ).

[Koganosi]

Some people like to play the game straight up with no alliances or truces ( pure RISK ).

How would you in any way make this an option? Only thing I can assume is by disabling Chat.
Truces are part of risk and wars, why woudl you take out the psychological thing? ONly thing I can come up with is if your bad at it.

Urs

Koganosi

[DoomYoshi]

There is a usergroup that plays games like this. I can't remember the name, but you could probably find out from someone.

Please use the form for Suggestions. I am not sure how this would be programmed, implemented etc.

If it is as Koganosi suggested, I can merge this with the "Disable Chat Box" suggestion.

[Funkyterrance]

I like this idea (no chat). Recently I played a game where it was every team for themselves and no speaking whatsoever till it was made evident that me and my teammate were going to win so a person on one of the teams says "we have to kill team x, they are going to win!". So everyone gangs up on us and broke us completely. So we all played silent until we were about to win fair and square. Something about it just doesn't sit right. I can understand when there's chat all along but this was just lame. I want to play games where players can't worm out of a defeat by ganging up.

[padsta]

I like this idea (no chat). Recently I played a game where it was every team for themselves and no speaking whatsoever till it was made evident that me and my teammate were going to win so a person on one of the teams says "we have to kill team x, they are going to win!". So everyone gangs up on us and broke us completely. So we all played silent until we were about to win fair and square. Something about it just doesn't sit right. I can understand when there's chat all along but this was just lame. I want to play games where players can't worm out of a defeat by ganging up.

If the other teams do not realise this and gang up on you without the need for chat they really shouldnt be playing team games anyway

[Funkyterrance]

I like this idea (no chat). Recently I played a game where it was every team for themselves and no speaking whatsoever till it was made evident that me and my teammate were going to win so a person on one of the teams says "we have to kill team x, they are going to win!". So everyone gangs up on us and broke us completely. So we all played silent until we were about to win fair and square. Something about it just doesn't sit right. I can understand when there's chat all along but this was just lame. I want to play games where players can't worm out of a defeat by ganging up.

If the other teams do not realise this and gang up on you without the need for chat they really shouldnt be playing team games anyway

Ikr. This is why it was aggravating. To be fair it was foggy but still the evidence was in the log. The very next turn after that team announced that we were going to win we got hammered though. Also, the team that blue the whistle was the team who had the best view of our superiority but again, it was pretty obvious from the log.

[undert0w]

I am keen for this too, but I wasn't sure how it could be done. But I guess disabling chat would be the way to go.

Perhaps just enable it after the game has finished to exchange pleasantries/insults.

Diplomacy is for the weak! (literally)

[DoomYoshi]

I am keen for this too, but I wasn't sure how it could be done. But I guess disabling chat would be the way to go.

Perhaps just enable it after the game has finished to exchange pleasantries/insults.

Diplomacy is for the weak! (literally)

The United States has the largest diplomatic office of any country in the world, so I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[undert0w]

Ha! I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about US foreign policy

All I meant was that in a fairly silent game of cc, many players will only begin diplomacy (or social engineering) when they are about to lose!

I think it shows great strength and resolve to win a game without alliances, truces or any other kinds of manipulation.

[Funkyterrance]

I am keen for this too, but I wasn't sure how it could be done. But I guess disabling chat would be the way to go.

Perhaps just enable it after the game has finished to exchange pleasantries/insults.

Diplomacy is for the weak! (literally)

The United States has the largest diplomatic office of any country in the world, so I'm not quite sure what you mean.

To be fair, he said "literally" so that means someone of weak bone and body would be more apt to use diplomacy in a fight(talk his/her way out of it).

[betiko]

yup i guess in that case you should go for a "no chat" option. I definitely wouldn't use it though!

I guess the chat would still be enabled between teammates in team games though?

[tkr4lf]

I like this idea (no chat). Recently I played a game where it was every team for themselves and no speaking whatsoever till it was made evident that me and my teammate were going to win so a person on one of the teams says "we have to kill team x, they are going to win!". So everyone gangs up on us and broke us completely. So we all played silent until we were about to win fair and square. Something about it just doesn't sit right. I can understand when there's chat all along but this was just lame. I want to play games where players can't worm out of a defeat by ganging up.

If the other teams do not realise this and gang up on you without the need for chat they really shouldnt be playing team games anyway

Ikr. This is why it was aggravating. To be fair it was foggy but still the evidence was in the log. The very next turn after that team announced that we were going to win we got hammered though. Also, the team that blue the whistle was the team who had the best view of our superiority but again, it was pretty obvious from the log.

So, you're mad because somebody called attention to the fact that your team was about to win? That's what you're supposed to do.

I don't understand why anybody would sit back and not say a thing when a player/team is about to win, and the other players/teams aren't doing anything about it. It makes no sense.

But then again, I don't get all the hate against diplomacy. I suspect the people that don't like it just really aren't very good at it.

yup i guess in that case you should go for a "no chat" option. I definitely wouldn't use it though!

I guess the chat would still be enabled between teammates in team games though?

I'm with you, betiko. I wouldn't use the option either. I suppose I wouldn't mind, since it would be an option, but then again, it's just another game option that I have to be careful not to join.

[betiko]

yup exactly tk. as a matter of fact I enjoy pretty much the game you invited me to because there's diplomacy and and all... unfortunately we're the only ones now as swimmer is out!
I'm pretty pissed in that game because other players don't give a damn about the chat and the fact that you're expanding like hell. trying to build alliances to counter you and no answer! for me that's the type of players i don't enjoy playing with. they don't even acklowledge that they've read your offer or anything..

but this setting would be a good thing because when you want to play diplomatic games, you would most likely play with only people who enjoy diplomatic games as others would just ask for no chat games.

[Funkyterrance]

I like this idea (no chat). Recently I played a game where it was every team for themselves and no speaking whatsoever till it was made evident that me and my teammate were going to win so a person on one of the teams says "we have to kill team x, they are going to win!". So everyone gangs up on us and broke us completely. So we all played silent until we were about to win fair and square. Something about it just doesn't sit right. I can understand when there's chat all along but this was just lame. I want to play games where players can't worm out of a defeat by ganging up.

If the other teams do not realise this and gang up on you without the need for chat they really shouldnt be playing team games anyway

Ikr. This is why it was aggravating. To be fair it was foggy but still the evidence was in the log. The very next turn after that team announced that we were going to win we got hammered though. Also, the team that blue the whistle was the team who had the best view of our superiority but again, it was pretty obvious from the log.

So, you're mad because somebody called attention to the fact that your team was about to win? That's what you're supposed to do.

I don't understand why anybody would sit back and not say a thing when a player/team is about to win, and the other players/teams aren't doing anything about it. It makes no sense.

But then again, I don't get all the hate against diplomacy. I suspect the people that don't like it just really aren't very good at it.

yup i guess in that case you should go for a "no chat" option. I definitely wouldn't use it though!

I guess the chat would still be enabled between teammates in team games though?

I'm with you, betiko. I wouldn't use the option either. I suppose I wouldn't mind, since it would be an option, but then again, it's just another game option that I have to be careful not to join.

Yeah the only explanation to my reaction must be that I'm mad because I'm no good at diplomacy. Totally solid reasoning, m8.
I'm not really all that bothered, this sort of thing happens in larger games. I would just like the option of being able to play a larger game where the odds weren't so much against the non-diplomatically, strategically superior player(s) winning instead of the most forked-tongued players(s). Sometimes I don't feel like putting on the "snake" face and just want to play a "may the best man win" type of game.

[clowncar]

I just prefer the game without diplomacy and was hoping there was a way to engage in games with like-minded players. I still like to play the game with or without diplomacy.

And someone is correct ... I stink at diplomacy. hehe

[DoomYoshi]

I just prefer the game without diplomacy and was hoping there was a way to engage in games with like-minded players. I still like to play the game with or without diplomacy.

And someone is correct ... I stink at diplomacy. hehe

There is a usergroup that does this.

As this isn't an implementable suggestion (I mean as in "Stop War" isn't implementable) we have one week to come to a consensus on how to implement this. If this is just to shut off the chat box, I will merge it with that suggestion. If clowncar or anyone else has another method, we can use that. Otherwise, to the bin it goes.

For what it's worth, I think the easiest way to implement this is if we could label not only private, but public games. Then you could call your game [NO DIPLO].

[clowncar]

I cannot think of a way of implementing it effectively other than what has already been mentioned.... making "disabled chat" as a game option is about as good as possible.

[Symmetry]

Ha! I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about US foreign policy

All I meant was that in a fairly silent game of cc, many players will only begin diplomacy (or social engineering) when they are about to lose!

I think it shows great strength and resolve to win a game without alliances, truces or any other kinds of manipulation.

War is merely the continuation of politics by other means

[DoomYoshi]

Just a placeholder post since I messed up my merges.

[undert0w]

Yes I am keen for this to be a game option, ie 'disable chat'.

To explain my reasons further: it is frustrating when the game if quite balanced yet player X suggests to player Y that player Z needs to be attacked or that player A is about to win; when this clearly isn't the case. Player X has just manipulated a victory purely by social engineering and peer pressure, as opposed to clever troop management, luck of the dice and raw logical tactics.

I know this is part of the game and part of human nature in general, but I would rather have the option of playing this 'pure' style of tactical warfare.

[Symmetry]

Yes I am keen for this to be a game option, ie 'disable chat'.

To explain my reasons further: it is frustrating when the game if quite balanced yet player X suggests to player Y that player Z needs to be attacked or that player A is about to win; when this clearly isn't the case. Player X has just manipulated a victory purely by social engineering and peer pressure, as opposed to clever troop management, luck of the dice and raw logical tactics.

I know this is part of the game and part of human nature in general, but I would rather have the option of playing this 'pure' style of tactical warfare.

Tactics are when you threaten to attack. Strategy is when you threaten to threaten.

[Donelladan]

All I meant was that in a fairly silent game of cc, many players will only begin diplomacy (or social engineering) when they are about to lose!

I think it shows great strength and resolve to win a game without alliances, truces or any other kinds of manipulation.

I think achieving to have the best position in dub games with 8 people do not require any skills. Same things for a stantard game with 4+ people.
It is just basic luck if nobody choose to develop in the same area than you, then you have a better position coz your opponent are fighting between them in other area and not in yours.
Total luck for most of map I believe.
What make you a good player, is being able to have this good position, and not showing up your strength so opponent wont gather against you. Actually having a very good position in a game with several team/players is a mistake except if 1) you have such a good position than you are able to kill everyone else 2) you are playing with noobs who wont react by teaming against you.
And of course what make a good player is diplomacy. As soon as you have a secured position, quite strong, you should start making truce with some players to avoid them teaming against you.

Well I think it is clear I am 100% against this idea. And there is nothing more that I hate than people not reading the chat !
But well if many people want to play together a game with no chat for sure I cant stop them.

[undert0w]

If you're 100% against this idea, you would simply not check the game option.
I have a decent rank and winning percentage and I rarely use diplomacy at all. By the way, most diplomacy is fine; I just feel it spoils the game when desperate people manipulate the weak minded to gain an advantage.

[skychaser]

Diplomacy is part of war.

This option would simplify the game by leaving one of it's components outside thus decreasing the game coolness.

I only play foggy escalating games and this would be a bother to me since I'm not a lucky type(I can take bonuses in about 5% of my games). So I'm against.