[GO] New Fog Option: "Heavy"

by **Crazyirishman** on Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:37 pm

I could see flat rate turn more into escalating. Because you could run the board and nobody would notice.

by **SuicidalSnowman** on Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:43 pm

Crazyirishman wrote:I could see flat rate turn more into escalating. Because you could run the board and nobody would notice.

Sort of, but at the same time everyone would (or at least should) be doing this as well.

I think this is an awesome idea, although I don't restricting game chat is a good idea, for the above mentioned secret diplomacy reasons.

Support.

by **Kotaro** on Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:44 am

SuicidalSnowman wrote:
Sort of, but at the same time everyone would (or at least should) be doing this as well.

I think this is an awesome idea, although I don't restricting game chat is a good idea, for the above mentioned secret diplomacy reasons.

Support.

In normal fog, it's exactly the same, except the Game Log would point out that he's attacking only you.

This adds a new level to team games, making Communication 100% required. On top of that, this also adds a mystery to the game, and makes it more, dare I say it, Extreme. This also stops annoying players from shouting out locations - for those of us that love Silence in a Standard game, it would be perfect.

On top of that, any abuse can easily be noticed in the Game Log after the game, at which point it can be reported. No, you won't get them kicked out mid-game and get free points, but they will get punished.

by **AndyDufresne** on Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:01 pm

Restricting game chat respectively (either in standard or team games) may be one of the more difficult things to code---or at least, get in the way of this suggestion.

But it sounds like an interesting idea, and I encourage you to keep the discussion going. IT's always good to have a post somewhere in the topic---keeping a running tally of "Points For the Suggestion" and "Points Against the Suggestion" -- I.E. Restricting game chat might be a point against it, since it may make the suggestion more difficult to implement.

--Andy

by **yeti_c** on Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:08 pm

I like this idea - but do I like it more than the "realistic fog" that other people have postulated?

C.

by **Kotaro** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:06 pm

I never have, no will, promote or agree with changing a gamestyle that has been around as long as Fog has, or any of the other options. Changing something just leads to disappointment for those of us that have been here for more than 2 years, and everyone else who has played a massive amount of games.

As for the difficulty coding, I don't see that as a con. It's putting in more effort on lack part, yes, but it's called "Working". It happens sometimes. If he is serious about upping the amount of appreciation and increasing his user count, the first thing he can do is start working on updates users want. If many people truly want a "Heavy" for the Fog, than lack can go the extra distance.

by **Kotaro** on Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:29 am

Any other discussion?

by **MeDeFe** on Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:27 am

I like the suggestion except for one thing: The chat restrictions. Someone mentioned banter already, which I also enjoy greatly on occasion, additionally the lack of a log would make diplomacy and backstabbing that much more interesting, but for that the chat is needed.

by **Kotaro** on Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:07 pm

Hence why this is an OPTION, not a replacement.

Plenty of people like banter - plenty don't. Personally, I don't care if you had shit dice, or if you want to talk smack; your dice are shit like the rest of ours, and your talking smack just shows you have a small cock and need some enhancement.