Would this be something that could be coded in? Might be fun as a setting. It's very natural to want to talk to your neighbors and alliances will form... I don't see anything wrong with it and I've done it on occasion although of course it's immensely frustrating when it happens TO you...

PUBLIC message from Chief Joseph [Ignore]

i would prefer games where you can't message on the whole so you can test your invidual skill - what do other people think as a matter of interest?

#3 of 4 [Reply]

15th Jan 2015 08:35 

PUBLIC message from Chief Joseph [Ignore]

will be posting NOMESSAGE games meaning no private messaging - is one up already so if people want to play solo they can - obviously it relies on people being honest but title will include NOMESSAGE so that people can test their skills at playing rather than messaging - will also put public message to remind people of the fact -

The idea has been put forth. For example, post #2 of

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2222/Enforceable_Treaties_and_Blinding

think its a different idea really - why not just have a no private messaging option when you set up the games so that especially in total fog games you are playing as an individual and know everyone else is too

Chief Joseph wrote:

think its a different idea really - why not just have a no private messaging option when you set up the games so that especially in total fog games you are playing as an individual and know everyone else is too

I believe it has been discussed.  One argument against asked what's to stop players from using outside-the-game private messaging, or even outside of WarGear messaging ..aim irc icq or just plain e-mail?  In the end it comes down to trust.

I don't like the "we can't stop it so why try" argument. In-game messaging is more convenient than other types of messaging, so we'd at least be adding another layer of effort by eliminating in-game messaging. Furthermore, if you join a fog game now, it's clear that the site is fine with messaging. So you can message without risk of consequences. But if you joined a no-communication game, it actually would be cheating to use any kind of messaging, which would deter a large population of players from using messaging during that type of game. So yes, it would still be technologically possible to communicate, but the difference is that for this type of game, it would be cheating.

This is why I suggested blinding the names of the players in my post. If you don't know who's in the game, you have to work extra hard to cheat. Cheaters would stand out.

I agree with Hugh completely. 

This is why I suggested blinding the names of the players 

That would add a significant hurdle...

asm wrote:

I agree with Hugh completely. 

me too.

Man that hugh guy is smart.

While I stand by my "we can't stop it even if we try" argument, I will admit that the restriction would be largely effective because most players would abide by the rules. As a non-fan of alliances, I can't say that I would not be interested in participating in games such as these, but I would sorely miss the casual conversation and trash talk.  But if no messaging of any kind is allowed, +1 for blind names.

With that in mind, I think it would be great if players could message after the game is over.

I think public messages would be ok, as long as they are not about the state of the game or alliances, just no private ones.

Yes. Public messaging for chatter and trash talk would be fun with the blind names and no private messaging, but might defeat the purpose. If you are allowed to communicate for some things, then it isn't really against the rules anymore.

yeah, might be harder to draw a bright line between what is allowed and what isn't.

If you allow public messages, you would need to allow it for anything including alliances. But at least they would be alliances that would be publicly known. And since you wouldn't know who was making the proposal until the end of the game, it would be more risky to agree.

Propose to call it:

Dark Game:

• No private messaging or no messaging at all
• Player color names are displayed in game instead of player names
• Defaulted to off but can be chosen at game start down by the fog level
• Designer can make it mandatory for a board

Seems like Vertigo would be a good candidate for this one with public messaging allowed.

Why Vertigo? The concept here, to me, is closely tied in with fog. I find that trash talking is a large part of Vertigo, maybe moreso than any other board. And that private messaging would be just about useless there.

Other than that, I agree with Korrun's bullets. I leeeeean towards allowing public messaging. Removing messaging altogether makes for a pretty sterile game (though I'm well aware that I make much more use of the in-game message box than most). There's certainly no downside.

asm wrote:

Why Vertigo? The concept here, to me, is closely tied in with fog. I find that trash talking is a large part of Vertigo, maybe moreso than any other board. And that private messaging would be just about useless there.

That's why I said with public messaging. You could still trash talk; you just wouldn't know which player was which.

Korrun wrote:

asm wrote:

Why Vertigo? The concept here, to me, is closely tied in with fog. I find that trash talking is a large part of Vertigo, maybe moreso than any other board. And that private messaging would be just about useless there.

That's why I said with public messaging. You could still trash talk; you just wouldn't know which player was which.

..but I'm pretty sure I could tell with 'certain' players, with a high degree of accuracy - not that it matters to me personally.

The more I think about it.. the more I'm not sure what my opinion is on this.  With or without such games, the issue of alliances is fraught with gray area and fuzzy lines.  Nonetheless, if they were here, and public messaging was allowed (and the more I think about that, the more I think you need public chat for other reasons), I'd probably give it a whirl because of my aversion to alliances.

I like messenging. It's part of the game, and it keeps it feeling like a community. I don't always like the messages, but good with the bad and all. 

I just realized that we'd have to build an exception for self messages.

M57 wrote:

Korrun wrote:

asm wrote:

Why Vertigo? The concept here, to me, is closely tied in with fog. I find that trash talking is a large part of Vertigo, maybe moreso than any other board. And that private messaging would be just about useless there.

That's why I said with public messaging. You could still trash talk; you just wouldn't know which player was which.

..but I'm pretty sure I could tell with 'certain' players, with a high degree of accuracy - not that it matters to me personally.

Could you? How sure would you be? The easier it is to tell who a 'certain' player is, the easier it would be for someone to mimic that 'certain' player.

Maybe.  I think I could pick out Mad Bombers distinct idiolect, but I'm not sure I could mimic it.