Fog of War Debate [Poll]

[The Neon Peon]

Calm down! Good grief. Is it impossible anymore to have a conversation with someone and have different viewpoints and for both sides to get their noses out of joint?

I am rather calm, actually. I see what you are saying, I am just trying to understand the viewpoint about no chat in Fog.

Just out of curiosity. In a single player game of FOG 3-8 players, do you inform the other players of the leaders armies and placements?

100% of the time. And for some reason, my win rate is very high in the games where that occurs. Once you start two people fighting, it is rather easy to make them forget when to stop.

[Windparson]

See, to me, that is not in the spirit of a fog game. Now, that is my opinion of how FOG should be played.

I am sure there are many that will disagree, and, on the other hand, many who will agree.

I play very few FOG games, mainly because I just don't like the format. But, if i was in one and players were giving out info about armies and placements, I would try to avoid the player who gave out the info.

And, no I am not going to "Foe" you from our discussion.

[Megadeth666]

See, to me, that is not in the spirit of a fog game. Now, that is my opinion of how FOG should be played.

I am sure there are many that will disagree, and, on the other hand, many who will agree.

I play very few FOG games, mainly because I just don't like the format. But, if i was in one and players were giving out info about armies and placements, I would try to avoid the player who gave out the info.

And this is exactly why I am having this poll, I feel the same as you Wind, and an option button would be a great Idea I think. Neons got a good point too, his strategy my work for him, but there is a lot of ppl that will chat out info just because their losing, and I think that is the case most of the time

[Snorri1234]

The Neon Peon builds a very large stack and exposes it to a few, but not all of the other players. The following conversation ensues...

Neon Peon: Before we go any further, all right, we have to swear to God, Allah, that nobody knows about this but us, all right? No family members, no girlfriends, nobody.
Sully: Of course.
Dancing Mustard: Agreed,
Yeti C: [from the next apartment through the wall] Don't worry, man. I won't tell anyone either.
Dancing Mustard: Who the f*ck is that?
Neon Peon: Uh, don't worry about him. He's cool.

I love that movie.

[Tracita]

I was in a FOA Oasis game w/ wcaclimbing and neon (3648679), and the following ensued:

2008-11-23 09:13:32 - The Neon Peon: Do I need to break teal? he took a lot of neutrals, anyone know if the grand oasis was among them?
2008-11-23 13:32:14 - wcaclimbing: teal owns GO 3
2008-11-23 17:31:26 - The Neon Peon: I checked myself, it was divided amont green, red, and teal. I am fairly sure he has is now.
2008-11-23 17:31:42 - The Neon Peon: he has 1 and 2, at least
2008-11-24 13:10:24 - lilwdlnddude: he has all 3, i almost broke him in oasis 3 but he only has 1 on oasis 3 now
2008-11-24 13:11:01 - lilwdlnddude: well he has all three if he in fact does own 1 and 2, because all i can see is grand oasis 3
2008-11-24 15:58:41 - The Neon Peon: Thanks yellow, broke him again.
2008-11-24 20:32:37 - Tracita: so much for fog of war
2008-11-25 18:49:26 - Tracita: good job, I do think you set it up for pink to win
2008-11-25 22:34:41 - ZeakCytho: wca, you sneaky bastard
2008-11-27 09:32:18 - The Neon Peon: gg guys

I was teal.
You guessed it, Neon (pink) won.

At the time, I was pissed (as I am w/many of my turns in CC) not b/c of them revealing my location, but b/c I didn't win. I shared this w/ another player and he felt it was cheating. I felt it was an open alliance, not cheating.

I like FOW for a number of reasons, the top three of which are
1) no one can see me
2) I can't see anyone else and I have to figure out from the log and the map where everyone else is
3) more often than not it prevents alliances

I do not like alliances much b/c I prefer to win ( or lose) on my own terms (group-think is what doubles/triples/quadruples are for) and b/c ultimately one person wins in terminator/standard games, and the alliance, more often than not, is betrayed. it's like the tv show Survivor, where there are alliances, then people complain b/c they are broken. Alliances usually only benefit one player. I understand it is another variable of game play for some. Me, I usually don't like to do it... but I don't rule it out. For that reason, I would like the option of "no chat."

"a large stack of troops (it does not really matter)... but I am stupid enough to let Fred see it. Now, since I do not have mind powers, my stupidity allows Fred to tell all of his friends about my stack of troops, and maybe even the players in the game. Yes, very smart choice of mine that was to show Fred the stack of troops. "

What about the inverse? And this is what I like about FOW: if you haven't been paying attention and utilize your "mind powers" to read the log and deduce what other people are doing, then you aren't being a smart player, either. Never mind having to hide your troops--- this is FOW afterall.... or I guess it does matter. It is a matter of perspective. In FOW, I count on all players not being able to see me. If you want to see where everyone else is, i.e. through alliances, why not just play a sunny game ????

That's why I think "no chat" or "no alliances" rule for FOW should be an option. At this juncture, I don't think, revealing someone else's location is cheating. for me, it just makes the game less interesting.

[Dancing Mustard]

If you want to see where everyone else is, i.e. through alliances, why not just play a sunny game ????

Because you don't want to see where everyone is. You want the option of being able to trade information, launch surprise attacks, set traps, and to indulge in information warfare.

That's why I think "no chat" or "no alliances" rule for FOW should be an option. At this juncture, I don't think, revealing someone else's location is cheating. for me, it just makes the game less interesting.

Exactly!

Toggle chat window on or off as a game creation option (just like the number of players etc) is just the best and simplest way of sorting this whole issue out. Garbled communications etc are a nice idea, but would take serious time to code and implement.

Is anybody feeling up to making a suggestions thread so that this idea can be shunted onto the to-do-list and ignored for all eternity?

[Megadeth666]

Is anybody feeling up to making a suggestions thread so that this idea can be shunted onto the to-do-list and ignored for all eternity?

I'll put the suggestion in, since it is my poll. Before I do though, Maybe a few suggestions how I should word it would be nice, so it might get looked at sooner than later!

[Dancing Mustard]

I seriously think that a "no chat window in this game" tick-box as an option on the 'start a game' screen would be the way to go.

Then people could use it for No-Info fog and alliance-free sunny.

The 'garble all talk' and 'limit talk to certain phrases' suggestions are all well and good, but they're complicated things to code and implement. This suggestion isn't a perfect cure (though it is a very good one), but it is one that could be easily coded and put into action by the people who are supposed to do such things.

Yes, a lot of people will squawk "secret alliances!", but (1) they can already do that regardless of the chat window, and (2) the feature makes it no easier or harder to indulge in such behaviour; it's a change that wouldn't have any (significant) effect on secret alliance behaviour patterns and the idea that it would is based more (in my opinion) on paranoia than actual logic.

Go make that suggestions thread sport. Let's get this thing etched onto the "to-do-list-of-things-that-won't-get-done" forever and always.

[yeti_c]

I seriously think that a "no chat window in this game" tick-box as an option on the 'start a game' screen would be the way to go.

Then people could use it for No-Info fog and alliance-free sunny.

Agreed.

C.