Funkyterrance wrote: padsta wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote: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.
betiko wrote: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.