The more I play, the more I realize that it's VERY common for players to collude without your knowledge.

While it's part of the game, it can be a bit too much at times. If you're a Risk board-game purist (not that I claim to be) you could argue that secret alliances are not a common tactic.

All I suggest is that you have the ability to turn off private messaging when creating a game.

Obviously, people can still communicate outside of Wargear, but it would clearly violate the spirit of a game with those settings, and hopefully reduce the amount of collusion.

In short, I would love to see this option, and seems easy to implement.

CHEERS

dblanch - this was discussed and decided when the site was created and not likely to be changed now.  It was decided that colluding after the game has started is acceptable play.  I don't engage in it and do not enjoy games where other players do, but that is part of the set up here. 

I'll also note that the boards you are playing are the ones that seem to be frequented by players who exhibit negative behavior (swearing/abusive comments, bad play, players convinced the dice are rigged).  The boards that are less like standard risk tend to be played by players that have been here for years.  And we tend to let our actions/plays speak for themselves.

Amidon37 wrote:
The boards that are less like standard risk tend to be played by players that have been here for years.  And we tend to let our actions/plays speak for themselves.

[Slow Clap]

Amidon37 wrote: The boards that are less like standard risk tend to be played by players that have been here for years.  And we tend to let our actions/plays speak for themselves.

I haven't been here that long and I totally agree with this.

Venture into the many other boards the site has to offer and you'll find both great competition and sportsmanlike behavior

Point taken, maybe I'll try that.

Though I'm not much of an "advanced player" - meaning I just like the basic Risk-style games. I'm on a pc at work and I really just like to spend a minute or two per turn, and the simpler games work best for that.

You can also find lots of boards that are basically "standard risk" but on a different map.

Try some of these:

• battle for new york
• australian risk
• Earth Reversed
• India
• Moon Base
• Pangea and Panthalassa
• Simple World
• World War

It would be nice to shut it off as an option , though.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:
The boards that are less like standard risk tend to be played by players that have been here for years.  And we tend to let our actions/plays speak for themselves.

[Slow Clap]

I would add that with the exception of the classical risk board (WGW), the fog level plays a big factor in alliances taking place or not. I don't play multiplayer no fog ot light fog precisely to avoid this kind of situation (though every now and then i join a light fog multiplayer game by mistake). I do actually truce sometimes, but it is only once in a blue moon, and for very specific reasons. My advice is if you play a game with 3 or more players, avoid no fog or light fog (except for wgw board)

I also vote to terminate private messaging.  It causes far more trouble than it's worth.  It is possible to communicate intentions with your moves, and without private messaging there's no accusations of backstabbing.  If you disable ALL game messaging then you don't need a profanity filter, either.

Furthermore, to prevent players from bypassing termination of PMs, what if players in a game were only shown by their color (or other game-related generic) names?  Actual player names and statistics would be shown only when the game is finished.  This also solves irrational attacks by vindictive players seeking only to spoil someone's game for a loss in a past game.

Of course, team members in team games should still be able to PM.

i'd highly miss the bantering that has helped us become a community. 

but then again i don't really see much issue with accusations/backstabbing other than with those that have a ...persnickety... personality anyways.

Maybe it could be an option for the host when creating the game?  No PMs?  No real usernames?

Speaking of no backstabbing, I used to play a risk variant where the ownership of each territory was fogged, but not the troop count.

I'd also love to see an option to turn off private messaging (and username display) when creating a game. I find the games a lot more interesting when you have to infer / guess what others intent is, but I understand some people view the explicit treaties as part of the game. To each their own, just would love to have the option.

toddgrun wrote:

I'd also love to see an option to turn off private messaging (and username display) when creating a game. I find the games a lot more interesting when you have to infer / guess what others intent is, but I understand some people view the explicit treaties as part of the game. To each their own, just would love to have the option.

That could make things interesting... If username could be turned off and even player colours randomized.  On top of that if each player would see the opposition as different colours so they can't even just write publicly, 'watch out for blue' as blue would be someone else from another player's perspective.  Play the board, not the individual players.

berickf wrote:

On top of that if each player would see the opposition as different colours so they can't even just write publicly, 'watch out for blue'...

Terminating all game messaging also solves this problem, and I bet it's a lot easier to disable game messaging than to code a multi-set, color-randomization routine. ;-)

camel wrote:

berickf wrote:

On top of that if each player would see the opposition as different colours so they can't even just write publicly, 'watch out for blue'...

Terminating all game messaging also solves this problem, and I bet it's a lot easier to disable game messaging than to code a multi-set, color-randomization routine. ;-)

I prefer the idea of public messaging with random colours.  If there is no game messaging period then there is more incentive to cheat the system and look for work-arounds when things get desperate.  With Public messaging enabled then a player's quickest route to making sure they get a message out there is to write it publicly, and fairly.  So, definitely against disabling all game messaging but am definitely for a toddgrun proposed no user name displayed, no private messaging, plus my additions approach to deliver something a bit different, and intriguing.

I would like public messages to just be specified as 'orange player', 'blue player', 'red player', according to how each player sees the board though, and not betray who is who.