Conquer Club

Concise description:
On game page, player can click "propose truce" to propose a truce to another player/other players. User selects # of rounds.

Recipient(s) get notification of truce offer and click "accept" or "counter offer".

Once truce is accepted, all parties can clearly see when they and others are ok to attack.

If someone attacks early, the truce is nullified and that user's trustworthiness score is affected (% of truces abided by).

All players are always aware of any truces on the board. No one needs to scroll up in chat to see who said what. No one needs to be confused by when exactly they are allowed to attack. If they try to attack early, they are warned that they would be breaking the truce unless they wait another N rounds.

Specifics/Details:

Show Trustworthiness % on users page.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

1 - I will buy premium again

2 - Maybe others will feel like paying for premium too

3 - Allows players who care about this to have a choice. Those who don't can continue as they were.

Alternatively, forgetting all of the above in-game UI, perhaps we can calculate a user's trustworthiness % based on how frequently they are labeled as "backstabber" in the ratings? This would much easier to do but less reliable. Perhaps Trustworthiness would start at 100% and be reduced by the % of games where someone labeled the player a backstabber?

Just another option to clutter the screen, I wouldn't be in support of this.

i think this is a bad idea, but before i berate the idea, let me offer a counter-suggestion:

ever thought of starting your own user group on CC of like minded truce players? you would be the admin of the group and have the ability to set rules within your user groups forums which could be strictly enforced by a small number of you. how so? if someone breaks a truce, the leaders of the group have a majority vote, that player is kicked from the user group and can no longer join the private games. see, already a solution to your problem...

now, the part where i say why your suggestion is a horrible idea:

truces are part of the game. truces can not and should not be enforced. truces are broken between real countries in real life, all the time. yes, this does include during times of war. truces are one of the major pieces of geo-political politics and thus, this is also reflected within the game of CC... those that choose to use them, use them for their benefit. If they see the truce is not going how they imagined it to be, they will break the truce at the most opportune moment. i do not know any player that will stay in a truce and slowly watch themselves die...

this is just more clutter, more wasted coding time, wasted resources, just a big waste in general. if you have this many issues with truces, perhaps the issue is with you. perhaps there is something inherently flawed with your "truce logic" and/or your implementation of said truces. good luck with this. sounds like a waste of time that is solely to deal with your frustration... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

well i think it's a great idea.

onlything is that the % truce should be automatic, not like a rating where people can write bs

betiko wrote:well i think it's a great idea.

onlything is that the % truce should be automatic, not like a rating where people can write bs

horrible idea! do you even realize how much coding would have to go into this? you would have to put into some box how long the truce was, and then monitor if it was held or if it was broken, etc, etc, etc... then calculate all this out at the end of the game, for the small amount of people that don't get "TRUCES ARE MADE TO BE BROKEN." my counter suggestion above, about a TRUCE USER GROUP, is far more practical and efficient and requires ZERO coding... here, you can call it TRUCE HONOUR SOCIETY. i won't even charge you for that name. but i do expect a seat at the leaders table, despite the fact that i will never play a game with members of the group (truces are for weak players)... good luck!! this suggestion will never happen as it stand...-Bj

Owen it is not our position to question the practicality of suggestions, only their worth.

I think this is a good idea, as it shows the respective views each player has towards truces clearly. I would like it to be a bit more complicated that held/broke truce percent. Most of us who break truces will hold them for quiet a while until they are no longer beneficial, and are not quite as bad as the straight percentage would make out.

owenshooter wrote:
now, the part where i say why your suggestion is a horrible idea:

truces are part of the game. truces can not and should not be enforced. truces are broken between real countries in real life, all the time. yes, this does include during times of war. truces are one of the major pieces of geo-political politics and thus, this is also reflected within the game of CC... those that choose to use them, use them for their benefit. If they see the truce is not going how they imagined it to be, they will break the truce at the most opportune moment. i do not know any player that will stay in a truce and slowly watch themselves die... r

I don't see the suggestions of the OP is a problem regarding anything you are saying here. You would still be able to break truce with the OP's suggestion. The only difference is that you would know if a player is trustworthy or not, which, if you take your real life example, is also true.

Otherwise, I do not think such a thing is necessary, I think truces are working quite well currently anyway. There is not that many truce breakers out there.
And I've been tagged as a backstabber several times without having ever broke a truce, so I do not really like your 2nd optional suggestion btw.

I think this is a very neat idea but I can't say that I support its implementation over many other things that need to be done. A nice treat to have if we had the programmer time to implement it.

I like this idea in part. I think it would be convenient to see what truces are active on the board as well as to keep up with them from game to game. Sometimes people forget about truces.

Although, I could do without the truce %. The gamesmanship that goes into trusting another player is part of the dynamic. Diplomacy is an important aspect of this game and I think tagging a number to somebody to influence that decision takes the fun out of it. Just my 2 cents, I know not everybody will agree with me on that one.

jmyork82 wrote:I like this idea in part. I think it would be convenient to see what truces are active on the board as well as to keep up with them from game to game. Sometimes people forget about truces.

now, see... this is the crux of the argument... people aren't "FORGETTING" about truces. they are BREAKING TRUCES when they have a significant advantage!!! oh. my. black. jesus. someone. please. save. me. from. these. people. the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:

jmyork82 wrote:I like this idea in part. I think it would be convenient to see what truces are active on the board as well as to keep up with them from game to game. Sometimes people forget about truces.

now, see... this is the crux of the argument... people aren't "FORGETTING" about truces. they are BREAKING TRUCES when they have a significant advantage!!! oh. my. black. jesus. someone. please. save. me. from. these. people. the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

I dont disagree that people do that but in a game of significant length, its easy to forget about a truce on a border that you agreed to 6 months prior. You mostly play games that wrap up in a short amount of time, but in a game that span several months, this suggestion would be helpful.

Just cause its not useful to you doesnt make it a bad suggestion.

jmyork82 wrote:Just cause its not useful to you doesnt make it a bad suggestion.

It isn't useful because it would be a monster to code and BW is not going to waste his time on coding truces, so we can see what percentage of truces a person breaks. i am pretty certain that we can look at someones rating/feedback to see this trend. one guy is continually getting roadrunner'd by the competition and he can't figure out how he keeps ending up falling off the cliff to yet another loss!!! this feature is not going to help this player and his poor truce gamesmanship!! and let's not be daft about this, TRUCES are for the savy!! savy smart players break them when they have a clear advantage and the person they just threw in front of the subway can not find his way back like the pizza rat!!! sorry, not worth the time or effort when we can already leave RATINGS for this... the black jesus has spoken...-Bj

judge_reinhold wrote:"whew... that truce really saved me from defeat..
i'm clawing back into this... WAIT!!! HE JUST BROKE THE TRUCE!!!!"

And If I want truce in one location and not the other locations? Normally people do make partial truce.

judge_reinhold wrote:Concise description:



Specifics/Details:



How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

how is this suggestion coming along? just wondering...-Bj

I like it!

haha just gotta make sure the truce ends after their turn and before yours xD

chapcrap wrote:I like it!

You would.

I like this idea. I regularly enter into truces only to forget about them and attack my ally on my very next turn. A lot of people are very mean to me for this, and if there was a truce button (perhaps with email alerts reminding me about my truce as well) I would not forget all the time and would not get such negative ratings all the time from intolerant ASSHOLES.

Great idea, judge.