Hello,

Have been a long time member of Wargear - am a huge fan, but brand new to posting on forums.

Any rate, having played a few boards, I am currently keen (have been for about 2,000 games so far!) on the Invention board, particularly in the latest format. sirdakka and I play it an unhealthy amount.

We have each found very different reactions to diplomatic negotiations on different boards. Some boards, such as Colossal Crusade, particularly lend themselves forming alliances, particularly in games with lots of players. Other boards, such as Wargear Warfare, can be won without the need for alliances at all.

The Invention board seems to represent an interesting middle ground - there are multiple ways to win on that board, so skilful play (and it is a difficult board to master!) tends to be enough to win most of the time, with alliances only really being formed when a player eliminates another and therefore has a second capital...However, it is such an obvious time to form an alliance that there is no real need for secret messaging.

There is also a downside to secret messaging - some players can feel manipulated, especially when they support an alliance, only to lose out to their ally. This sometimes leads to resentment, possibly because the player would rather get angry at their opponent/ally, rather than admit that they have been outplayed on a complex board with lots of dynamics.

As a completely seperate point, I also feel that alliances are, "good form" when being used to catch a runaway leader, but, "bad form" whan used as a fundamental strategy to win a game. This, of course, depends massivley upon the board.

What do people (is that the right way to ask a question on a forum?!) think about having an option to create a game with no secret messaging allowed...a bit like selecting the fog level, you could select secret messaging? After all, if we were playing around the kitchen table, secret messaging would not exist if you had to stay at the table and whispering wasn't allowed!

Happy gaming, keep safe and gargle plenty of bleach!

Even if you did have such an in-game feature, there's no way to enforce the spirit of it because people send messages on player's boards or by using the Messages feature on the site all the time.

Atkins, playing vs sirdakka can be quite unhealthy for your Invention ‘rating’. 😉

I agree with your thoughts on alliances. Sometimes, I make temporary truces with flks along a certain border, which I think is also good form.

It would be an interesting feature to add to the designer (or Create Game option) to allow PMs ON/OFF. You might add it to the Suggestions Box tab.

I enjoy games where noone PMs each other, so if feasible I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure it is. 

M57, you are, of course, absolutely right. However, I suspect that creating a game where no PMs are allowed would go some way to at least slowing down the use of, "hidden" messaging, even if just through peer pressure alone ("I am not interested in your messages - this game is supposed to have open messaging only").

I might be being overly optimistic, but I suspect that, even if it only partially worked, would be an improvement on the current situation...the bad eggs would quickly become known about...if easy to implement, presumably nothing lost?

While I like the idea in theory, I agree with M57 and don't see it being much use. If people want to communicate, they will.

And the best proof of this is looking at player profiles. If I have understood correctly, in game messaging was not always available, or was premium only for a while (before I joined WG). And you can see loads of old messages on player profiles about forming a truce in some game of the other (and on top of that, you have to take into account deleted messages there, and private messaging).

So do you guys really think that the majority of players are more concerned with winning, rather than enjoying the game?

Personally, I only waste hours of my time every week on this site because I find it enjoyable pitting my wits against other players in a given environment and also enjoyable exchanging on a myriad of topics with many of those players. If I happen to win, well that gives a degree of satisfaction, but is by no means the most important element.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting no communication at all, rather that the communication is done openly. The payers in a particular game can, of course, reach agreement at the beginning of the game to not use private messaging - we have done that with good results, hence starting this thread.

If you could select an option at game creation that barred the option of private messaging, I quite accept that some people could find ways to get round it, but I suspect that the majority would adhere to it...Perhaps the result should not affect a player's ranking, so as to remove the temptation to cheat to improve a ranking?

I think it would be interesting to trial it, particularly if it could be affected without too much work...after all, you don't have to join any game, so those that want to secret message would not have to join, or those that are concerned that they will lose to someone cheating by communicating despite secret messaging not being allowed would not have to join either.

Mind you, I'm not a fan of alliances.  I avoid them and no doubt I lose a number of games because I refuse to enter into them unless they are "obvious and implied."  The game just isn't as fun for me with alliances.

I completely agree with the point about not liking alliances...It has taken me a while to learn that, but that is exactly what is behind this push to try no private messaging

Atkins wrote:

I completely agree with the point about not liking alliances...It has taken me a while to learn that, but that is exactly what is behind this push to try no private messaging

This (private messaging) has been debated since the site began. The basic decision was that since it couldn't be 100% enforced (i.e. there are plenty of "back-channel" ways to chat) that a way to do it "on-site" was created.

I know many players enjoy private messaging and the diplomacy/politics that go with it and consider it part of the game but I hate it and have completely stopped playing boards where it tends to happen.

^ I thought we had that conversation early on Amidon and came to that same conclusion, although I couldn't find the thread.

Private messaging for alliances isn't something I have commonly done, but I see it as part of the game, that is, as long as it's not spilling over to multiple games and too much collusion. I wouldn't be against the option of removing private messages (and it would slow down some instances), but those that really want it to happen could still make it happen.

I would not be happy if I joined a team game only to find that the option of PM-ing my teammates was disabled. I even use the feature for small talk on occasion.  Ironically, even though I'm not a fan of alliances I would probably want to avoid games that disallow PMs.

PMs are useful for all sorts of purposes other than forming alliances. They essentially allow players to make a variety of side deals in a game, which can range from alliances to ceasefires to non-hostility agreements along a given border or set of borders to coordinating an attack on a common enemy to simply exchanging information (e.g. in a fogged game). There is an element of intrigue to all of this situations, as of course each player is also trying to get greater advantage out of the deal than the other player.

But PMs also, as M57 pointed out, allow for small-talk on the side, which I think is useful for building up community in the long term. They're also a way to share commentary on the game, even if that commentary doesn't necessarily contain any strategic value for that particular game. For example, I've been in PM conversations where I'll message another player I know with thoughts like, "nice move there, wouldn't have occurred to me to play it that way" or, "wow, risky gambit! but the dice did (or did not) pay off", or "can you figure out why [player X] did THAT?!" and similar. Makes the games a bit more social, I think.

Kjeld wrote:

But PMs also, as M57 pointed out, allow for small-talk on the side, which I think is useful for building up community in the long term. They're also a way to share commentary on the game, even if that commentary doesn't necessarily contain any strategic value for that particular game. For example, I've been in PM conversations where I'll message another player I know with thoughts like, "nice move there, wouldn't have occurred to me to play it that way" or, "wow, risky gambit! but the dice did (or did not) pay off", or "can you figure out why [player X] did THAT?!" and similar. Makes the games a bit more social, I think.

This I quite enjoy!

Yeah, social PMs are nice and I wouldn't play a team game without them. 

Litotes wrote:

I enjoy games where noone PMs each other, so if feasible I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure it is. 

Agre 100% with this.

I have got to say that I am a little confused by a lot of the chat going on here...No one, for example, is suggesting getting rid of private messaging in team games, or getting rid of them in any specific singles games for that matter...All that is being asked is to have the option to bar them in certain gamea at thw creation stage - so noone has to join them if they want to play a game where private messagung is allowed.

Maybe I don't understand the function of forums...this one is called general diacussion after all... but if the aim is to get to a resolution...!

Atkins wrote:

Maybe I don't understand the function of forums...this one is called general discussion after all... but if the aim is to get to a resolution...!

No, you are absolutely correct about the function of the forums, but "resolution" is always a process here; it is standard practice on these forums to weigh and debate ideas and requests for features thoroughly. Tom rarely participates in these discussions unless he has specific questions regarding implementation, but we believe he does read them (at least he use to back in the day when many of our requests were implemented).

When Tom determines that they have been adequately vetted, he then needs to decide what priority to give the feature, and obviously ease of implementation weighs on that.  Last I recall he had a list with get this.. over 100 requests for features..  Roughly half by and for players, and the other half by board Designers.

As far as this particular request is concerned, it has be requested before as Yertle mentioned, and no doubt it was vigorously debated. I haven't looked for the thread, but I can think of issues that haven't even been discussed here regarding the request.  One that comes to mind is the idea that a high priority was given to the idea that the Game Creation page needs to be as simple and uncluttered as possible.  The last thing that folks want is to have to go through 10 different options before they start a game. There have been MANY requests for a number of valid features on that page, and I don't think I'm wrong when I say that most of them end up not being implemented in the name of "keeping it simple."

@Atkins I assure you I'm not trying to be an ass here. Your points are valid.  I can only tell you that I understand your frustration. Those who have been on these boards can attest to the fact that I have come up with dozens and dozens of ideas and features that have been either directly shot down or placed so low on the list that they will never see the light of day.

..Granted, practically all of them are Designer features ;P

Atkins wrote:

So do you guys really think that the majority of players are more concerned with winning, rather than enjoying the game?

Personally, I only waste hours of my time every week on this site because I find it enjoyable pitting my wits against other players in a given environment and also enjoyable exchanging on a myriad of topics with many of those players. If I happen to win, well that gives a degree of satisfaction, but is by no means the most important element.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting no communication at all, rather that the communication is done openly. The payers in a particular game can, of course, reach agreement at the beginning of the game to not use private messaging - we have done that with good results, hence starting this thread.

If you could select an option at game creation that barred the option of private messaging, I quite accept that some people could find ways to get round it, but I suspect that the majority would adhere to it...Perhaps the result should not affect a player's ranking, so as to remove the temptation to cheat to improve a ranking?

I think it would be interesting to trial it, particularly if it could be affected without too much work...after all, you don't have to join any game, so those that want to secret message would not have to join, or those that are concerned that they will lose to someone cheating by communicating despite secret messaging not being allowed would not have to join either.

This is where I am too

Kjeld wrote:

PMs are useful for all sorts of purposes other than forming alliances. They essentially allow players to make a variety of side deals in a game, which can range from alliances to ceasefires to non-hostility agreements along a given border or set of borders to coordinating an attack on a common enemy to simply exchanging information (e.g. in a fogged game). There is an element of intrigue to all of this situations, as of course each player is also trying to get greater advantage out of the deal than the other player.

But PMs also, as M57 pointed out, allow for small-talk on the side, which I think is useful for building up community in the long term. They're also a way to share commentary on the game, even if that commentary doesn't necessarily contain any strategic value for that particular game. For example, I've been in PM conversations where I'll message another player I know with thoughts like, "nice move there, wouldn't have occurred to me to play it that way" or, "wow, risky gambit! but the dice did (or did not) pay off", or "can you figure out why [player X] did THAT?!" and similar. Makes the games a bit more social, I think.

+1