Deals / Truces / Aliances - "Politics" in the game

[gp24176281]

I want to discuss the issue of Politics in the game.

The general idea:
---------------------
To enable games that have no "politics" involved (maybe named "grim").


Specifics:
-----------
I would like to c a game option refered to as grim/talkative. Talkative is to be as it is now. Grim, will be a game without "politics".


Why is it needed:
--------------------
Many players find that verbal truces/aliances/deals are against the spirit of the game and don't play with them.
The main problem is - when u join a game, u don't know which players u'll play with. If u end up with players that like playing with "politics", u have 2 options:
1. Play in a disadvantage, sticking to your notion that "the game should be played without deals".
2. Make your own counter deals, which might balance the game - but will ruin your enjoyment.

Making an option of Grim/Talkative will answer this problem. I don't think there should be any enforcement of the subject. Just a pointer of preferance on how the game should be played

gp

[wcaclimbing]

or, just don't post any deals.
If anyone makes you an offer, just decline it.
Then you wouldn't have to worry about it.

[lozzini]

ewhats wrong with politics a a perfectly good and fair tactic... ut as with any other tactic it can be implimented stupidly

[Wwoody123]

I fear that if chat is disabled then people will be more likely to PM each other.

[gp24176281]

or, just don't post any deals.
If anyone makes you an offer, just decline it.
Then you wouldn't have to worry about it.

In my original post I explain what is wrong with your suggestion

gp

[gp24176281]

ewhats wrong with politics a a perfectly good and fair tactic... ut as with any other tactic it can be implimented stupidly

Obviously - I don't agree with u. Thus, would like to play with ppl that enjoy the game more without "politics"

gp

[gp24176281]

I fear that if chat is disabled then people will be more likely to PM each other.

In the way the game is set now - yes, it would.

I believe chat should be enabled in such games. I thought of the subject of enforcing and came to the conclusion that the best way is .... not to. I'll be leaving the judgement of what is politics and what is not in the hand of the players in the game (each for himself).
This option is more of a pointer in my eyes. Someone that states "what's wrong with politics a perfectly good and fair tactic" (lozzini) will never join such a game.
I met quite a few ppl out there that believe politics ruin the spirit of the game. If I can indiacate my preference, I believe alot of bad feelings within the games will disapear. I won't be forced to play with ppl that believe "politics is good and fair tactic" and will enjoy the game much more. From the other side, ppl who believe "politics is good and fair tactic" can play the same game between themselves (as politics totally change the nature of the game).

gp

[thinktank]

I have had problems with in-game politics before. I think all players have had experiences of this kind at one time or another.

So I wholeheartedly support a deal/no_deal button. Just add it below the Fog of War button.

How to enforce it? Why, no possible way, of course. But a player who tries to initiate that on a no_deal game will look like an a_sh*le. There are no villains in this game; no heroes, gods, magic, etc. This is a game between real people, and as such each one deserves to play a game the way one wants it.

[Prinfi]

I would like have the option of "No chat/deal game" i really like the games without deals; i am agree with gp, deals changes the spirit of the game (in my opinion) so i vote for games with "NO CHAT/DEALS".


Prinfi.

[RobinJ]

gp already know my opinion on this (as I have a feeling it was my "politics" that prompted him to make this thread). As someone earlier said, politics can go wrong if done stupidly but otherwise they are a necessary part of the game. Amongst better players, these politics need not to be verbal but should be an inherent intuition of where peace and war are needed.

For example, when you are the weakest player in a 3-player game, many regard it as dirty to try to make an NAP with the second weakest. However, most realise that it is common sense to focus on the leader, not dirty play. If the two weaker players are at loggerheads then its virtually handing it to player 3 with all the power.

So my personal opinion that truces are necessary on CC if you want to win games that have become lopsided against you. If your oppponents are clever, instruction should not be needed. However, I have always hated players who team up and continue to team up long after the initial threat has been quelled. Luckily for me, I play mainly escalating games, where truces and deals really are stupidity cos the game can change in an instant - you should try your hand at a few - much more fun I think

[PLAYER57832]

I almost never form alliances, but I also rarely see them employed. Since you specifically stated it would not be enforceable, it seems like you would just encourage jerks to specifically join your games to create alliances .. since they know they will be effectively unopposed. Enough people already make ILLEGAL alliances as it is. Some folks just want to cheat.

Better to just put folks who use alliances in ways you dislike on your ignore list. Or, grin and bear it for the few games in which alliances are made.

[TaCktiX]

As Player57832 pointed out, the lack of enforceability will kill your games in the reverse manner you're trying to approach them. If having "no deals" is such a big deal for you, start private games with friends with the pre-clause "no deals". In a mass game like CC, you will always get the spiteful jerks who will try to piss you off.

As for the subject of alliances themselves, I strictly enforce any pact I make, most often twisting it to my advantage. All's fair in love and war.

[gp24176281]

Since I believe that ~30% of the games will be "no deals", there is no way there are so many "jerks" that will join in spite. These are not "my games" as stated, since it's a real problem for many others. At any rate, I don't c the objection to have such an option. The fact it's not enforceable just make it simpler - no real code changes, with a high benefit to many players.

gp

[Snorri1234]

Since I believe that ~30% of the games will be "no deals",

Uhm...that's a pretty high estimation. Deals is not only alliances and no-attack-policies, they can be simple like: "you should shift your focus more on that guy as I am weak" or "can I take greenland if I let you take mexico?" and basically anything that even people in a no-alliances-game will do.

I think you're better off setting up a usergroup for like-minded people and play those games. Adding another option to the game which is already full of them seems unneccesary, especially when I imagine the amount of people who really want that is small.

[Keebs2674]

As someone earlier said, politics can go wrong if done stupidly but otherwise they are a necessary part of the game. Amongst better players, these politics need not to be verbal but should be an inherent intuition of where peace and war are needed.

I agree with Robin's sentiment. I think truces and alliances are lame. I don't form them; however, do I understand why other (lesser, in my opinion) players use them. I would prefer continuing to convert others to my way of thinking rather than having another game option to sort through to find a game that perfectly suits how we each want to play.

At what point will the number of game options stop? What's next? Games for people who don't want cursing in chat boxes? Games for people who don't want others to skip turns intentionally as a matter of strategy? Games for people who think using text abbreviations such as "u" instead of "you" or "c" instead of "see" is the ultimate in laziness? Seriously, is it that hard to type two additional letters? I don't like any of these things, but I don't think we need more game options so we can create games to satisfy every little aspect of game play that we might find unfavorable.

[mrbang]

Hey, what's one more option going to hurt.
Remember "Risk" had 1 map, escalating armies, adjacent fortification. No options.
Now we've got a multiplicity of games here, via the options.

This proposal does have a major effect on game play.

I've never liked deals, truces, or "coaching". If you want that go play partners.

But, if we add this option, Deals/No Deals, it would only be an indication of preference, perhaps making the game more enjoyable for some of us.

I like it!

mrbang

[castudil]

Personally I am against any intention of truce. From my point of view this affect in a negative sense the flow of the game, typically against the person who (most of the time) legitimately have reached the lead of the game in terms of strategical position or advantage in the general sense.

Entering more on details, I see two kind of attacking the leader, one legitimate and the other questionable.

The questionable is the one where users make a complot using the chat and create a illegal collision against a player or a group of them. this, again, from my perspective make the game worst than it should be and it should be avoided and if we want to be more absolutist, perhaps forbidden (how? well I do not know, maybe other suggestions may be opened pointing to that topic).

the legitimate one, in the other hand, is the one when players, thinking individually can reach the conclusion that attacking certain player will bring equilibrium to the game, and will bring more possibilities to win to those that are weaker. This approach requires cleverness and the capability of analyzing the movements of others carefully. In this sense, player are 'CHATTING' when they move troops in a certain way. Radically different from the vulgar explicit offer of truce.

Clearly, as the reader can understand when reading my opinion, I prefer the second one. and I guess that there is a good amount of players thinking in the same way. So if there is a suggestion, going into the direction of helping to filter the players who like to make alliances during game, then I will be supporting this. I am not saying that the suggestion of GP as it is must be implemented, what I am trying to say, instead, is that we can talk for a while and converge in some main points that lead us to find a good solution (if the community agree of course) to separate this two kind of players with the ultimate objective of make this game more fun than It actually is!

[gp24176281]

At what point will the number of game options stop? What's next? Games for people who don't want cursing in chat boxes? Games for people who don't want others to skip turns intentionally as a matter of strategy? Games for people who think using text abbreviations such as "u" instead of "you" or "c" instead of "see" is the ultimate in laziness? Seriously, is it that hard to type two additional letters? I don't like any of these things, but I don't think we need more game options so we can create games to satisfy every little aspect of game play that we might find unfavorable.

I just wonder - Do u really think all these small petty things u remark upon, really compare to deals/no-deals (and I mean the real ones - not the idiotic ones)?
Where is the objection in making the game much more enjoyable for a large group of players? Someone think I exagarate when I say that 30% prefer no deals game. I think I am realistic. And 30% is not a portion to ignore (especially with such a small change).

gp

[chemefreak]

A few things. First, great topic. Second, if you look at "classic" risk, table talk "chat" was impossible to avoid. Truces and other agreements were part of the game because everyone could see what was going on in real time and out in the open. Third, the chat in cc does keep people from emailing or pm'ing and, at least in my experience, the chat is a fun place to get to know other players and to openly discuss strategy. Does it suck when two players gang up on one in a three player game? Yes. But it is part of the game. It extends the game and makes it more enjoyable. Do you have to take it personally? No. It is just a game. Heck, I have attacked a player I normally would not have attacked, just because I did not want them in the game anymore because they were abusive or rude in the chat.

FOW. Fog-of-war is clearly a "new" type of risk. Obviously, in the "classic" board game, it was impossible to do FOW! There have been many threads talking about the ethics of FOW games. I am in agreeance with the majority view that all is fair in love and war. Thus, I have no problem with someone telling everyone in the chat about troop movements they observe in the fog. First, this allows for misdirection. If you believe everything in the chat, you are an idiot! I have lied in a FOW map about the strength of one opponent to keep another opponent from attacking one of my borders. It is only a strategy, but a very effective one. Second, in real life, sometimes you may not know the enemies' troop positions, but as soon as you do you would radio it to your allies and others who may be able to aid you, even if that "other" is a current or future enemy. Again, it sucks having your position exposed, but it is part of the game...and it is just a game.

Finally, to the chat/no chat question. If it can be made an option to disable chat and this is known before a game is joined that would be fine with me. I probably would not play in such a game, but at least it would give others the option if they want it.

[max is gr8]

Politics should mean contracts, if you back out of agreement I get one of your units for 3 turns, etc. making it politics.

[superkarn]

I'm one of those that is all for deals/truces/alliances. And I agree with Chemefreak about the FOW and "all is fair in love and war".

With that said, I like more options also. And might I suggest something similar: instead of having a separate option for deal/no_deal, just add a game title and/or description. Then you can add your "un-enforceable" rules there.

This could also be expanded to include house rules (which was rejected) where the game starter lists the rules for that particular game. Obviously it's going to be based on honor code, and if people break those rules, you can't do anything except add them to your ignore list and give them negative feedback, etc (but that's another topic).

Win-win?

[greenoaks]

I'm one of those that is all for deals/truces/alliances. And I agree with Chemefreak about the FOW and "all is fair in love and war".

With that said, I like more options also. And might I suggest something similar: instead of having a separate option for deal/no_deal, just add a game title and/or description. Then you can add your "un-enforceable" rules there.

This could also be expanded to include house rules (which was rejected) where the game starter lists the rules for that particular game. Obviously it's going to be based on honor code, and if people break those rules, you can't do anything except add them to your ignore list and give them negative feedback, etc (but that's another topic).

Win-win?

so you think it would be ok to give someone a neg for breaking the house rules for the game, as decided by the creator.

would it not also be ok to give someone a neg for revealing army sizes and location in a FoW game as the creator of that particular game has decided his 'house rule' is that that information is to be hidden from view.

[superkarn]

so you think it would be ok to give someone a neg for breaking the house rules for the game, as decided by the creator.

would it not also be ok to give someone a neg for revealing army sizes and location in a FoW game as the creator of that particular game has decided his 'house rule' is that that information is to be hidden from view.

If all the players of that game are told, before the game starts, about not disclosing any map information in a FoW game, then yes give him a negative feed back for breaking a rule he agreed to (by joining the game).

Just because a game is FoW does not mean you are not allowed to disclose information. The information you gather is your asset. And IMO, you should be able to use all your asset to your advantage to help you achieve the goal (victory).

When I play against my friends, if we agree to not share any information in a FoW game, then of course I wouldn't.

[castudil]

After reading all the opinions, and then coming back to the original idea, I conclude that perhaps a good way to solve the issues is to and and MORE INFO field when someone create a game. In that sense the author can include informal rules such as "no chat" or "no truces", "no revealing information" so everyone entering the game will implicitly agree the terms of the creator and this may involve negative feedback, which will be the punishment for those no respecting the informal rules.

[Thezzaruz]

At any rate, I don't c the objection to have such an option. The fact it's not enforceable just make it simpler - no real code changes, with a high benefit to many players.

I think that too many options will just make it harder for people to find (and fill) games that suit their specific preference and that wouldn't benefit anyone. So is there too many/too few/just the right amount of options today? I'm not sure but adding a new rule that is (as admitted by yourself) unenforceable really isn't the right way IMO.

At what point will the number of game options stop? What's next? Games for people who don't want cursing in chat boxes? Games for people who don't want others to skip turns intentionally as a matter of strategy? Games for people who think using text abbreviations such as "u" instead of "you" or "c" instead of "see" is the ultimate in laziness? Seriously, is it that hard to type two additional letters? I don't like any of these things, but I don't think we need more game options so we can create games to satisfy every little aspect of game play that we might find unfavorable.

I just wonder - Do u really think all these small petty things u remark upon, really compare to deals/no-deals (and I mean the real ones - not the idiotic ones)?

Well that is all about preference. IMO all the things Keebs mention are at least as annoying as in-game politics, for you they apparently aren't.

Where is the objection in making the game much more enjoyable for a large group of players? Someone think I exagarate when I say that 30% prefer no deals game. I think I am realistic. And 30% is not a portion to ignore (especially with such a small change).

But you don't know that the number is 30%, you are just guessing/making the number up tbf.