I thought it would be cool to have some sort of wargear reputation system.  The simplest version would be something like a thumbs up/down you could assign to anyone.  Kind of like the friend/enemy, but with no consequences.  Thumbs up you've received, minus thumbs down gives you your "reputation". 

Now you have some idea when you're making a deal with someone if they will hold up their end of the bargain.

Obviously a one-dimensional system is limiting.  Is someone with low reputation just a trash-talker, or do they break truces or try to stall in their turns, etc.

A more complicated alternative would be a tag based system.  You can choose up to 3 tags from a set of tags to identify anyone else.  They get a word cloud on their profile of the most commonly assigned tags.  Example Tags: (un)trustworthy, good/bad sport, friendly/jerk, slow/quick, careful/cautious/defensive/aggressive/etc.

Maybe there is some aspect of this you could make a premium feature?  Like maybe only premium player assignments are counted in the word cloud calculation?  This would also keep someone from making a bunch of fake accounts to influence someone else's word cloud.

My first impression is that this is not workable idea. What's to stop someone from from giving thumbs-down vendetta style?  Or just because they didn't like something you said in the forums, etc.

I thought a more interesting feature, proposed a few months ago, was 'Enforceable' Treaties." Although, after trying it out, I suspect I would probably avoid games that offered them because avoid alliances in general.

Enforceable treaties sounds more complicated to me, and more limited.

>What's to stop someone from from giving thumbs-down vendetta style?  Or just because they didn't like something you said in the forums, etc.

Vendetta style?  Well, you only get one up/down vote per person, so each person would only have a small influence.  If someone didn't like what you said somewhere, that's part of your reputation. 

I was thinking about how if you were to play with a consistent group, you get to know everyone's personality.  Here on wargear, our opponents change so often, most players don't recognize most of the people they play against.  In a in real life boardgame situation, a chronic backstabber would get a reputation and that would be taken into consideration when they try to make a deal.

Maybe so, but where's the proof?  Are we gonna have to keep track of the reputations of the those who pronounce reputations.  Hmm.. with 'semi-enforceables' players could actually have backstabber stats.

There is no such thing as proof when it comes to reputation.  If 50 people think you are a backstabbing jerk & 25 people think you are a trustworthy, you get -25 reputation.  That's what a reputation is.

It's like on reddit or facebook.  Just because something has 100 likes or upvotes, it doesn't mean it's any good - it's just a reflection of the opinion of the community.

Right now I think I'm an alright guy. i know I have an enemey or two or more? out there somewhere, but I'm not sure I really want to know what everyone thinks. 

Its a competitive game, their probably not going to like me. 

>I'm not sure I really want to know what everyone thinks.

I can definitely understand that angle, but I think you'd be pleasantly surprised ratsy.

I think it's an interesting idea Ozy.  I'll start by giving you a 'thumbs up'

Hi guys,

I have played on a site that had both a reputation system and enforceable treaties. First, the reputation feature.

Reputation as "voted" on by the players is more of a popularity contest than anything. However, vindictive ppl on that site would use it to smear a person they did not like by having their friends also vote thumbs down on a person they did not like. It got kind of ugly with ppl calling each other out in the forums. I did not care for it.

The enforceable treaties were a bit complex. They allowed diplomatic messages to the other players in the game. These could be free form messages as you and your opponent hammered out the details, then you would use the pull down menus to offer the official treaty. and the message would read something like SexySass  requests a [non aggression/alliance/mutual defense/others choices as well] for X turns. So for a concrete example. I might offer Ozyman a non-aggression pact between Quebec and Michigan provinces for 3 turns. Then Ozyman can click on accept or reject. If he accepts, then the treaty became public and was posted for all to see. If the app determined that you violated the agreement it would announce it in public chat and decrement your diplomacy score. If you held it for the duration your diplo score would go up. The only problem I had with it was the app was inconclusive in telling me yes or no to a particular action. I had very little time to decide bc once you started your turn there you had 60 minutes to finish it. So I jumped on the forums and sent out an sos. Everyone online that answered, agreed that what I wanted to do was not a violation. But after I did it, the app declared it as such and that black balled me from many games as ppl did not want a treaty breaker in their games. The specifics of my dilemma was I had a non agress between Argentina and north Africa. I was on an attempt to win by eliminating players and cashing cards when I needed to take out North Africa. I was attacking it from the Congo, not Argentina, and every said that was OK, but the app disagreed. Anyway, my point is that the logic was complex and the implementation difficult and when a bug hit in a trusted system of honor, your rep can be shot when you did no wrong.

maybe a trust worthy opponent trophy would be cool. not sure how it could be implemented. if it could i think it should only be for truces upheld, and not for ones that are not. just to keep the bashing down.

Assuming you got plus points for holding and treaty and minus points for breaking one, Everyone here would have a diplomatic score approaching zero.  

Especially the good players. 

A well timed backstab is the key solid endgame planning.

you are right ratsy. i guess it would not make much sense. it's kinda the same as enemy or friending a player.

ratsy wrote:

Assuming you got plus points for holding and treaty and minus points for breaking one, Everyone here would have a diplomatic score approaching zero.  

Especially the good players. 

A well timed backstab is the key solid endgame planning.

I honestly don't think I've ever broken a treaty with someone.   Rarely make them in the first place, and I always make them conditional - I never have a broad non-aggression pact.

wow really? This doesn't sound familiar:?

"orange is gonna win if we don't do something..." and then you don't attack blue for a while, you just attack orange?

I tend to avoid diplo agreements ofg any kind, but sometimes they can be useful. I don't stab and thus agreements doon't do as much for me as others like Rat  Man [hey there Ratsy!]

When I do make an agreement of any kind, I always put a clear event that dissolves the agreement, like for 4 turns or until Orange is below 12 terts, or until we end the game in a tie. Something like those, though I prefer the "number of turns" delimiter bc it is easy and everyone understands.

i tend to not say anything and play along with like i agree with said truce maker. then i go kamikazi.

Yeah, the idea of 'enforceable' treaties has been broached before. I for one wouldn't not want to play in such games.  Not that I think it's a bad idea, but it makes it a different game.

M57 wrote:

wouldn't not want to 

so that's a yes from M  ;^p

weathertop wrote:

M57 wrote:

wouldn't not want to 

so that's a yes from M  ;^p

Damn!

j-bomb wrote:

i tend to not say anything and play along with like i agree with said truce maker. then i go kamikazi.

I got really blasted in the forums once when I tried to make a treaty with a guy who never responded. So I attacked him and he not only blasted me he reported me to the cheating watch group for cheating????? They took a look at the chat and the moves, and declared him an idiot! LOL Well, they simply said that in their opinion the charge of cheating was unfounded. The next time I was in a game with him he called me a cheater again, and again I was cleared. I Don't cheat, I hate cheaters. I don't ever run multis, even in games where it is allowed and in games where it is needed. I hate multis. The thing that really bothers me is that some people think winning is more important than honesty. I am not talking about people who break treaties, I don't, but if you do, I won't ever condemn someone for that. I am talking about those who cheat and/or run multis where not allowed [generally so they can cheat].

Ooops! Guess that hit a nerve.

I don't have a problem with you doing that j-bomb. But on rereading my post, I thought my intent was unclear so I edited it to add this bit.  However, I won't agree with anyone in a game if I have been stabbed by them in a previous game. Once ya stab me, ya make my list and I check it twice to see who's naughty and nice!